ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [425] -- Stress Conference

[ Posted Friday, February 17th, 2017 – 19:32 PST ]

Before we begin, two quick notes. That subtitle above isn't ours, but when we heard what CNN's Brian Stelter called the hot mess we saw yesterday, we had to agree it was the perfect description. Stress conference indeed! Secondly, our opening metaphor to describe our own personal reaction is going to need a rather roundabout explanation, just to warn everyone in advance.

In Silicon Valley, there's a pretty common interview question that is supposed to test whether a techie job candidate is capable of creative (or "outside the box") thinking. The question: If you were standing in front of a rather tall multi-story apartment building and (for some unspecified reason) had to know its exact height -- but all you had to work with was a barometer -- how would you go about doing it?

There's one fairly obvious answer, but in reality it'd require an incredibly precise barometer. Since a barometer measures change in air pressure, take a reading from the sidewalk, then take it up to the roof and take another reading, and figure the height from the differential in air pressure.

There are many more creative (and less obvious) answers to the problem, however. Such as: Go buy a long rope, head up to the roof, tie the barometer to the rope and lower it to the sidewalk. Mark and measure the length of the rope used. Our favorite was always the most pragmatic and non-mathematical answer possible: Go find the building's supervisor or manager and offer him or her a swell barometer if they'll tell you the exact height of the building. Problem solved, and you get the exact height rather than an approximation!

But there's one possible answer to the problem which sprang to mind after Donald Trump's press conference yesterday: Go up to the roof and drop the barometer to the sidewalk. Count the seconds before impact, and then use the formula for the acceleration of gravity to figure out the correct height.

That's the image that Trump's use of the phrase "fine-tuned machine" brought to mind -- a fine-tuned machine, tumbling to Earth, to inevitably be shattered into a million pieces.

It's pretty easy to understand why Trump is so visibly frustrated. All his life he's surrounded himself with yes-men and yes-women, and as president he's now got a lot of people telling him: "No." As in: "Sorry, you can't do that, it's illegal and unconstitutional," or: "Well, things don't really work that way, you can't just sign a piece of paper and make it happen," or: "The judge ruled against you," or even: "Thanks a bunch for offering me the job you just fired a guy from, but somehow it doesn't seem all that tempting an offer."

The frustration is getting so bad, Trump is going to retreat into his comfort zone and hold a campaign rally. Because that's all he really wanted in the first place -- crowds of supporters cheering his every word, no matter how unhinged from reality it was. Maybe Mike Pence can run things while Trump goes on an endless campaign tour, who knows? With Trump, anything's possible.

Because (as is becoming the new normal) there was so much political news this week, we're going to have to run through it all rather quickly. Everyone can play along at home, counting the seconds until the fine-tuned machine Trump insists his White House truly is smashes to the ground. To the sound of music, no less, but we're getting way ahead of ourselves. Everyone ready? Start counting....

The whole concept of Trump's fine-tuned machine was utterly dismantled by the folks over at the Washington Post, which has a pretty extensive list of why it's a laughable concept. The last bullet point on their list:

Of the 696 government positions that require Senate confirmation, Trump has nominated 34 people, 13 of whom have been confirmed, leaving 662 positions where no one has even been nominated.

The funniest bit was what one commenter had to say, however:

I grew up in farm country. I've seen those fine-tuned machines, they hang on the back of wagons and are used to spread smelly stuff on the fields.

Couldn't have put it better!

The scariest quote from the Trump presser, to our ears at least, was the following:

You know what uranium is, right? It's this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.

Hoo boy. That may have topped all the inane things George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Ronald Reagan ever said combined.

Here's the inevitable fact-checking article, in case anyone out there can actually handle the truth. We wrote our column yesterday on the most easily-disprovable lie Trump uttered, but if that's not enough for you, the Post also has a helpful article explaining (contrary to Trump's claim) that drugs aren't actually cheaper than candy bars. Just in case you were wondering.

A few other obvious non-fine-tuned idiocies from the past week, in what might be called "adventures in creative spelling." Betsy DeVos wasted no time in proving to every critic that questioned her fitness for office that they were absolutely right (not that there was any real doubt). The Department of Education tweeted out a quote this week, from "W. E. B. DeBois." When it was pointed out to them that they'd misspelled his name (should be "W. E. B. Du Bois"), they tweeted a correction, with the text: "Post updated -- our deepest apologizes for the earlier typo." Wow -- DeVos just started, and they already can't tell the difference between a verb and a noun? In a tweet where they were supposed to be correcting a typo? Wow, that's just... wow.

This follows the news that a poster from Trump's inauguration had to be pulled from the shelves because it read: "No dream is too big, no challenge is to [sic] great. Nothing we want for the future is beyond our reach." This was advertised as a photo that "captures the essence of Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency of the United States." Oh, we'd have to agree.

The Republican Party got in on the fun as well, by tweeting out a fake Abraham Lincoln quote for his birthday! Maybe next time they'll just stick to Lincoln's words: "For score and seventh years ago...".

Spelling idiocy aside, there was plenty of other grinding noises coming from Trump's "well-tuned machine" this week -- which started with a disastrous round of interviews for Stephen Miller on the Sunday shows. His most jaw-dropping line was that Trump's powers "are beyond question" on the whole Muslim ban issue. By week's end, however, the White House had thrown in the towel and announced it would not fight the Ninth Circuit Court's order any more, instead choosing to issue a new Muslim ban next week. Maybe the second time's the charm, eh?

In other fine-tuned news, Trump's choice for Labor secretary had to withdraw in shame, after a dozen or more Republican senators indicated they wouldn't be voting to confirm him. This followed the firing of Trump's national security advisor, earlier in the week. After Michael Flynn was fired, it was revealed that he had indeed lied to the F.B.I. about that phone call to Russia where sanctions were discussed. Lying to the F.B.I. is supposed to be a felony, but we're not exactly holding our breath waiting for Jeff Sessions to bring charges any time soon, if you know what we mean.

Trump tried to quickly replace Flynn, but the first guy he offered the job to turned him down cold, confiding in a close friend that Trump's offer was nothing more than "a shit sandwich." And topping all the week's personnel problems was the news that six White House staffers were suddenly shown the door when they failed their background checks. The door hit their hindquarters on the way out like a fine-tuned machine, one assumes.

What else? A national security crisis broke out when North Korea test-launched a ballistic missile, which Trump responded to by holding a secure meeting in the midst of a roomful of diners who had no security clearances at all. This was followed by a hastily-arranged press conference where Trump merely stated America was "100 percent behind Japan" -- nothing like leading from behind, eh? Russia buzzed an American destroyer this week with some military jets, and Trump also did absolutely nothing in response. And word leaked out that Trump likes his national security briefings to be on a single page, with short bullet points, and lots of maps and graphics ("The president likes maps") -- because who doesn't prefer looking at pretty pictures over reading boring text?

In other military news, a memo draft surfaced with a new plan to use 100,000 National Guard troops in 11 states to round up all those immigrants Trump doesn't approve of. See, we knew that "deportation force" would pop up sooner or later! In a fine-tuned way, of course.

Trump's job approval rating sank below 40 percent in multiple polls this week, which is probably a big reason (big-league reason?) that he's heading back out on the campaign trail -- which is so much more fun than doing the job. Hmm, that reminds us... didn't Trump once have a few words to say on the subject? Actually, he wouldn't shut up about it last year -- here's just one random example:

I watched Obama yesterday. Why isn't he working? Why isn't he working instead of campaigning for crooked Hillary? Why? Why? Unbelievable. Who's paying for that big plane that comes in? I just wonder.

But now that Trump's president, it is no longer an issue -- because he's not just having fun using the plane, he's also going to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in extra security costs. He's gone to his Florida resort three times already, which "have likely cost the federal treasury about $10 million." And that doesn't even count the extra money it takes in local security and traffic (which Palm Beach officials want reimbursement for). Guarding Trump Tower in New York City is going to cost us all over $180 million per year, too. Oh, and when Eric Trump took a trip to Uruguay, it cost $100,000 in hotel bills alone for the security detail. Boy, don't you miss the old Trump who used to worry about taxpayer money getting squandered?

If it seems like there is nothing else going on in Washington, that's because there isn't. The long saga of Republicans being absolutely incapable of coming up with a replacement plan for Obamacare continues (seven years and counting!), although so far few have noticed their continuing inability to write a single word of actual legislation. This is going to be a bigger deal next month, so stay tuned!

And finally, a bit of cheerful news. The Morning Joe program -- one that Trump regularly watches -- has bitten the bullet and just flat-out banished Kellyanne Conway from their studio. Here's what Mika Brzezinski had to say about their reasons for permanently disinviting Conway:

We know for a fact she tries to book herself on this show. I won't do it, because I don't believe in fake news or information that is not true. And that is -- every time I've ever seen her on television, something's askew, off or incorrect.

Here's what co-host Joe Scarborough had to say about Kellyanne:

She's in none of the key meetings. She goes out and books herself often.... I don't even think she's saying something that she knows to be untrue. She's just saying things, just to get in front of the TV set and prove her relevance because behind the scenes -- behind the scenes, she's not in these meetings.

Looks like the fine-tuned machine slipped a rather noticeable cog, there!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have three Honorable Mention awards to give out this week, both for amusing quotes.

Al Franken hinted that a few Republican senators think Trump has mental health problems: "It's not the majority of them, it's a few. We all have this suspicion that he... that he lies a lot, that he says things that aren't true. That is not the norm for a president of the United States, or actually for a human being."

Not to be outdone, Bernie Sanders made a similar case last Sunday morning:

We have a president who is delusional in many respects, a pathological liar.... It is very harsh, but I think that's the truth. When somebody goes before you and says that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally -- nobody believes that. There is not a scintilla of evidence to believe that. What would you call that remark? It's a lie. It's a delusion.

He later followed up on Twitter: "I disagreed with President Bush all the time. I never called him a pathological liar. He was just conservative. But Trump lies all the time." Good point, Bernie!

Trump told some falsehoods about both Elijah Cummings and the Congressional Black Caucus, right before he asked an African-American reporter to set up a meeting with them (more on that later, down in the talking points). Cummings quickly called Trump on his nonsense, but the C.B.C. decided to use Trumpian language in their response on Twitter: "Hi, @realDonaldTrump. We're the CBC. We sent you a letter on January 19, but you never wrote us back. Sad!" They included a link to the letter, which requested a meeting -- which the White House hadn't responded to as of yesterday, when Trump was seemingly informed that they even existed, by a black reporter. Gotta love that "Sad!" at the end....

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Representatives Jared Polis and Earl Blumenauer. If it weren't a partisan award, we would also give out two others -- to Republicans Dana Rohrabacher and Don Young.

These four House members just formed the "Cannabis Caucus" this week. Like all other issues-oriented caucuses (caucii?), it will be dedicated to one single subject: reforming the Draconian (and almost antediluvian) federal marijuana laws.

Up until very recently, the formation of such a caucus would never been even remotely possible. The times they are a changin', though, and getting cannabis policy right at the federal level has never been more important. With state laws clashing with federal laws, and with a new president and attorney general who seem to be salivating over ramping up a bigger and fiercer Drug War than ever, now is indeed the crucial time for politicians -- of any party -- to stand up and interject some sanity into the conversation.

In fact, we'd strongly urge people not only to use the link at the bottom, but also to contact your own congressional representatives and ask them why they aren't in the Cannabis Caucus yet. There are a lot of single-issue voters on this subject, and it is time to make their own voices heard.

It's also worth mentioning where we heard about this effort, if you'd like to participate a different way. Tom Angell, our favorite marijuana reform advocate, has begun a daily newsletter covering all marijuana news items. You can sign up to receive this newsletter at MarijuanaMoment.net, if you'd like such news in your inbox every day. Here's an example to check out -- yesterday's newsletter, with links to the live-streamed press conference announcing the Cannabis Caucus. We intend to become regular readers of this newsletter, so we don't miss such important marijuana/political news in the future!

We also hope to see the Cannabis Caucus grow... well, like a weed (couldn't resist). Seriously, though -- for bravely taking this pioneering step in Congress, this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards go to Earl Blumenauer and Jared Polis. Keep up the good work, guys, and hopefully you'll soon have lots of company in those caucus meetings.

[Congratulate Representative Earl Blumenauer on his House contact page, and Representative Jared Polis on his House contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is going to be a generic award, given out to clueless Democrats everywhere.

The vote for Democratic National Committee chair is going to be held in a week. The contest may be a close one, and may signal which direction the party heads in the near future. But there is still a lot of rampant denial among the party bigwigs over what Donald Trump's victory meant, and additionally over what the movement Bernie Sanders led means for the changing priorities of the electorate.

To be blunt, many Democratic leaders still have their heads in the sand. They firmly believe that they lost the 2016 election because they just didn't have a great message. No policy adjustments are necessary, just better framing. To shift metaphors, this isn't just missing the forest for the trees, this is bending over intently to look at an acorn while smacking your head into an oaken tree trunk. Think this is too harsh? Here's a shocking quote from a Democratic Party insider:

A former aide to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cautioned the Democratic Party against "moving policy to the left" in response to the wave of public protests targeting President Donald Trump, telling MSNBC: "You are wrong to look at these crowds and think that means everyone wants $15 an hour."

"I actually think the real energy is not just with the base. These are apolitical people that are turning out," Jennifer Palmieri said in an appearance on Chuck Todd's show last week. Palmieri served as communications director for both the Obama White House and Clinton's presidential campaign.

This is stunning in its shortsightedness and inability to see what is happening out there. But what was even more disheartening was hearing what some top Democrats had to say to Bernie Sanders in a recent leadership meeting. Senator Joe Manchin was the one who leaked the story, but it's impossible to say who exactly he was talking about:

"They basically explained to Bernie, it looks like you could be the person that could calm down and make sure their energy and all this enthusiasm is directed in all the right proper channels," Manchin said. "Bernie has a voice, and if [protesters] want to be active, then direct them to where the problem may be or where they anticipate a problem."

Got that? Bernie Sanders has a following of robots, who do exactly what he tells them to do. Because why else would anyone be out there protesting? They still want to see Bernie beat Hillary in the primaries, or something.

Sheesh.

The Democrats are facing a wave of public anger. So far, the anger has mostly been directed at Donald Trump and his Republican enablers. This has been so successful that Republican officeholders are running scared from the entire concept of facing their constituents in town hall meetings. There's something happening out there, in other words, that could grow into a force as potent as the Tea Party was on the right.

But some Democratic leaders seem to think the protesters are all nothing short of just being Bernie's useful idiots. Manchin didn't say who led this boneheaded request, merely using the generic "they." As well as Manchin and Sanders, the group also included Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, "among others." So absent another leak, we have no idea which of these Democrats deserve this week's MDDOTW award. Which is why we're giving it to every Democrat who just fundamentally does not understand that there's a grassroots movement out there, that it could be a very powerful political force which could help the Democratic Party out immensely, and that Democrats need to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

If Democrats truly believe that these throngs don't really care about things like a $15-an-hour minimum wage, then they are just as delusional as Republicans who insist (without one tiny shred of evidence anywhere in the entire country, of course) that every progressive protester is somehow on the payroll of George Soros.

No matter who wins the D.N.C. chair position next week, we sincerely hope they are a little more in tune with what is going on out there. Because the Democratic Party is never going to win until they start to listen to the anger brewing. Even if that means "primarying" a few of them to get the point across.

[With such a vague group of winners, we cannot provide accurate contact information so you can let them know what you think. Instead, we would suggest joining in the nearest protest march and tell them out in the streets! Maybe eventually they'll hear the message.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 425 (2/17/17)

Last week in this space, we bemoaned the lack of a better label for what some journalists were beginning to call "the Tea Party of the left" -- the swelling wave of protest and political activism that is sweeping the country in opposition to Trump. We asked for suggestions for a better label to use, and we got a pretty good response to the contest.

Since that time, however, we've been informed that there is at least one motivating force behind the movement, the Indivisible Guide website which lays out concrete steps progressive citizens can take to make their voices heard. So we do apologize for not using the Indivisible name, which (so far) seems to be what people are increasingly beginning to call the movement as a whole.

Indivisible meets the criteria for any good political label, in that it is short and snappy, and reaches for a lofty goal. All that is to the good, and we promise we'll be using "the Indivisible movement" ourselves in the near future.

But we still think any political movement can't have enough snappy slogans and rally cries, so we're actually expanding the contest this week to challenge people to come up with what they'd like to see either chanted at Republican town halls (such as the now-famous "Do your job!" for Jason Chaffetz) or soon appearing on a large banner at a protest rally near you. What should the Indivisible movement's rallying cry be? As we said, the more the merrier, really, so let everyone know your thoughts in the comments this week, and we'll put together a list of our favorites next Friday.

OK, with that out of the way, let's get to this week's talking points for Democrats everywhere to use profusely.

 

1
   Blacks don't actually all meet at Oprah's house every month

This was one of the most cringe-worthy moments from Trump's presser.

"What planet is Donald Trump from? What is it with white people who seem to sincerely believe that all African-Americans in the entire country know each other personally, perhaps from those famous monthly 'all the black people' parties at Oprah's house? Do you even realize how stupid that makes you sound? When Trump told an African-American reporter to go ahead and set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, it was offensive on multiple levels. That woman is a national political reporter, and is definitely not your appointments secretary, Mr. Trump! It is simply not her job to schedule meetings for you -- which you might realize if you had even the faintest idea of what a journalist actually does."

 

2
   Some good news

In the midst of all this fine-tuned chaos, there was one bright bit of news.

"The yearly ranking by historians of our past presidents just came out -- the first one to include Barack Obama on the list. Here's how recent presidents measure up, according to the professionals. George W. Bush moved up three places, from 36th to 33rd (out of 44). His father ranked significantly better, in 20th place. Bill Clinton beat both Bushes out in 15th place. But the real news is that Barack Obama, in his first appearance on the list, placed an impressive 12th-highest out of all our past presidents. That's a legacy he can be proud of!"

 

3
   If it's Tuesday...

Trump isn't the only one moving at top speed, it seems.

"The flood of scandals spewing forth from the Trump administration is likely to set historical records. We're only four weeks in, and investigations are becoming necessary for all sorts of things. Just last Tuesday alone news was made on three of these -- Kellyanne Conway shilling 'buy Ivanka!' on television, the 'room situation' of a national security crisis being handled in full view of diners down at Mar-a-Lago, and how the Russian influence investigation is moving forward. That's all just one day in the Trump administration. folks! It's gonna be a long four years, that's for sure."

 

4
   Cartoongate

Of course, not everyone is pulling their weight in this respect.

"Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the governmental oversight committee in the House, is apparently more interested in investigating cartoon characters than anything the Trump administration has been doing. The Centers for Disease Control was going to have the PBS children's television cartoon character Sid the Science Guy help raise awareness of the Zika virus, which doesn't seem all that controversial to me. But Chaffetz has sent them a letter demanding to know what's going on. As the Washington Post brutally put it: 'Sid, for readers not familiar with PBS children's programming, is a preschool cartoon character. Like President Trump, Sid is orange. Unlike Trump, he is highly inquisitive.' This article raised many other unanswered questions for Chaffetz to probe, including: 'Does Snuffleupagus really exist?' and 'Are Ernie and Bert just friends?' We realize that once Donald Trump took office, Washington was going to take on a rather cartoonish tone, but at some point the joke isn't all that funny anymore. Chaffetz doesn't have time to investigate Russian involvement with our elections or the Trump administration, but he's got time to probe a cartoon character? Wow."

 

5
   Problem solved!

Echoes of the past....

"It seems that people are showing up at Republican town halls to let their duly-elected representatives have an earful about the Republican agenda -- especially the whole business about leaving people out in the woods to die rather than allowing them to have health insurance. Donald Trump had a rather unique perspective on this in his presser, saying: 'I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they are not Republican people that our representatives are representing.' Not sure what 'alleys' he's talking about, but it's pretty clear that, according to Trump, people in Congress are supposed to only be there to represent, quote, Republican people, unquote. That's rather frightening when you think about it. But the Republicans have an even better answer -- they're just not going to listen to anyone, because they're running scared from the whole idea of town halls -- in fear of such protests. Yeah, that's the way to get re-elected -- ignore your constituents!"

 

6
   Competency tests for all!

Calling for Trump to have his head examined is only the beginning....

"The Republican Congress moved with blinding speed on what is obviously one of their biggest priorities -- making sure that mentally incompetent people have full access to guns. You just cannot make this stuff up, sadly. The Obama administration moved to add people who had been judicially deemed to not be competent enough to manage their own affairs to the list of people who probably shouldn't be able to buy a gun, but the Republicans in Congress just overturned this sane idea. Every time some right-wing nutjob shoots up a crowd full of people, Republicans fall back on the 'he was mentally ill' excuse, which is why it is stunning for them to be making it easier for mentally incompetent people to acquire firearms. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Democrats will be reminding them of this when the next preventable tragedy strikes, you can be sure of that."

 

7
   A flibbertigibbet, a will-o'-the-wisp, a clown

The hills are alive... with the sound of a fine-tuned machine hitting the sidewalk and smashing into a million tiny pieces. OK, how many seconds did that take? Did everybody count? Heh.

The following comes from a real news story, published by the Palm Beach Daily News. It is not satire from a late-night comedy show, sadly enough. Any of these quotes can easily be used as a Democratic talking point, for obvious reasons.

Patrick Park is an avid fan of The Sound of Music. You might say he's obsessed with it. "Really, I've seen it like 75 times," the concert pianist/industrialist said. "I know every single word and song by heart. I've always wanted to live in the Von Trapp house." Well, if he can't live there, at least he'll be close enough to visit. Park has received unofficial word from President Donald Trump -- well, as unofficial as a handwritten note saying "on to your next chapter, Ambassador!" can be -- that he is the president's choice to be U.S. ambassador to Austria. The president said he thought it would be a good match for Park because it is steeped in musical culture....

Park said he's already started boning up in order to be ready if and when the call comes. "I had a chance to talk to the Swiss and Hungarian ambassadors at the Red Cross Ball and at the diplomats' dinner the night before," he said. "They want me to visit them in Washington, and the Austrian ambassador in Washington said he wants us to go for lunch. See? I'm already working!" First thing on his unofficial to-do list? "I'm flying to Vienna to check out the embassy, and then I'm going to Salzburg to see if the Von Trapp house is for rent," he said, laughing. "And then I'm going to learn to like schnitzel and sachertorte."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

289 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [425] -- Stress Conference”

  1. [1] 
    michale wrote:

    To be blunt, many Democratic leaders still have their heads in the sand. They firmly believe that they lost the 2016 election because they just didn't have a great message. No policy adjustments are necessary, just better framing. To shift metaphors, this isn't just missing the forest for the trees, this is bending over intently to look at an acorn while smacking your head into an oaken tree trunk.

    Isn't it funny how I am attacked and called names when I say the EXACT same thing in nearly the EXACT same way? :D

    As to your characterization of President Trump's press conference??

    The people who actually voted the president into office LOVED it..

    And, if it was Obama up there dismantling the press?? Ya'all would have loved it to.. :D

  2. [2] 
    michale wrote:

    If so, Trump is delusional all the way to the bank. His first month in office has been, let’s face it, a smashing success. He has already taken steps via executive order to fulfill at least a dozen of his campaign promises:

    Order a wall along the Mexican border and actually start enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration? Check.

    Revoke federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities that offer illegal immigrants charged with crimes refuge from deportation? Check.

    Squelch for good the job-killing, secretly negotiated Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership? Check.

    Ask the State Department and the Army Corps of Engineers for quick approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines that reduce dependency on foreign oil? Check and check.

    Freeze the metastasizing tumor of the federal bureaucracy and its death-dealing regulatory tendrils? Check, check and check.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/17/trump-executive-orders-elite-popular-polls-muslim-ban-immigration-column/97920456/

    Yep, yep and yep...

    Ya see, ya'all have your spin and then there is reality..

    And the reality that the Left Wingery simply cannot handle is that President Trump beat NOT-45 in fair, free and honest election..

    Everything the Left has spewed and did since then is to achieve one thing and one thing only...

    De-legitimize the President Of The United States to insure that he is a one-term President..

    In short, the Left is acting *EXACTLY* as they accused the Right of acting...

    How is this not hypocrisy??

    I know, I know.. I won't get an answer...

    But that won't stop me from asking the question... :D

  3. [3] 
    michale wrote:

    And just keep in mind one very salient point..

    Trust in President Trump is low...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/16/donald-trump-delivers-a-series-of-raw-and-wild-attacks-on-the-media-in-a-press-conference-for-the-ages/?utm_term=.9b5860e621b6

    Trust in the media is at an all time low and it is MUCH lower than President Trump's numbers..

    That's a fact that no amount of fantasy or spin can erase...

  4. [4] 
    michale wrote:

    From the previous commentary..

    Your response is way too measured for the situation confronting us.

    And the current response of the Hysterical Left is a recipe for the destruction of this country..

    Greenwald: Rooting For "Deep State" To Undermine Trump Is Destroying Democracy In Name Of Saving It
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/17/glenn_greenwald_to_support_cia_attacking_elected_branches_of_government_is_warped.html

    Leaking confidential information hurts President Trump but also hurts this country..

    With a few notable exceptions, it seems like everyone on the Left is cheering the former and ignoring the latter BECAUSE of the former...

    The ends justifies the means and ANY and ALL collateral damage is acceptable....

    Those who fight their perceived monsters must take care not to BECOME the monster..
    -Nietzsche

  5. [5] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Michale:

    Do you play golf?

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale:

    Do you play golf?

    I used to.. But I could never get past that blasted windmill and the laughing clown just pissed me off...

    :D

    Seriously, no... Never played golf...

  7. [7] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    One of my friends got me playing for a few weeks, but I gave up. I shot 248 one day and got so disheartened I didn't bother to go on to the second hole.

  8. [8] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    One of my friends got me playing for a few weeks, but I gave up. I shot 248 one day and got so disheartened I didn't bother to go on to the second hole.

  9. [9] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Bugger it. Double post again. Too easy on this site.

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives

    In the space of fifty years, Berkeley students have gone from rioting against a university administration that limited their freedom of speech to violently opposing the presence of a speaker they disagree with.

    The violence at Berkeley mirrors the street protests in Paris from 1968. Privileged and excitable students living in one of the most blessed parts of the world went out and created havoc in order to overthrow an opponent that they refused to tolerate. The Parisians, at least, had a deeper political cause – but the Berkeley students carried out the ugliest form of protest. It is the form of protest that says “I don’t like that view, therefore you must not be allowed to express it” and it is causing a lot of students to have their own ‘Scruton moment’.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/17/student-lefts-culture-intolereance-creating-new-generation-ofconservatives/

    This is why the Democrat Party is in trouble.. The actions of future Democrat leaders is doing nothing but creating new conservatives dedicated to the concept of REAL tolerance...

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    One of my friends got me playing for a few weeks, but I gave up. I shot 248 one day and got so disheartened I didn't bother to go on to the second hole.

    hehehehehehehe Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Bugger it. Double post again. Too easy on this site.

    I've got some minor nerve damage on my trackball hand.. I have noticed that when my fingers twitch and I tap the SUBMIT button while a comment is posting, it will duplicate the comment, one for each twitch..

    There are major revisions in the works here. They might alleviate that problem... In the interim, I have taken to clicking on SUBMIT and then immediately sliding the cursor away from the SUBMIT button.. Seems to help...

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Leaking confidential information hurts President Trump but also hurts this country..

    We'd all be a lot more sympathetic to 45 if he didn't gloat so much about the "leaks" (stealing) of emails from Hillary.

    The leaks are nothing new, they happen all the time. It is called gossiping for the most part. It is endemic. Gossip, in my experience, increases when people are unhappy - they love to whine and point out the stupidity of their bosses.

    I'm imagining that having a little shit like Stephen Miller telling you what to do is probably getting under the skin of highly experienced government staff, and they sound off about it. Once gossip gets out there is spreads like wildfire and somebody tells somebody else who chats to a reporter over a beer.

    So this is far less like a 'leak' in the Snowden or DNC email sense than blah-blah-blah-whine-whine-whine.

    Given the fiasco that is the 45 White House (fine tuned machine my derriere - John McCain even trashed that yesterday), the gossip will be rife. Good luck stopping that, tongue wagging is as old as humanity. THe more they try to police it, the more will get out.

    The way to limit destructive gossiping is to have respect for leadership. Not much chance of that with a delusional clown who happens to also be a pathological liar and never blames himself for anything "running" the show.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are major revisions in the works here.

    Say it ain't so!

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know I don't adapt well to change.

    Of course, it's not long before I can't remember how it was before the change so, there's that, at least ...

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK CW, what are the "people in the street" saying? And what should the leadership say to rally them?

    Because the Democratic Party is never going to win until they start to listen to the anger brewing.

    I went to the Women's march on January 21st and there were a range of speakers. The crowd got fired up by the "He doesn't represent our values" speakers and tuned out the "Workers of the World Unite" ones.

    In fact, when a black woman got the mic and started telling a 95% white crowd (I live in happy valley) that the problem was white privilege, the crowd had had enough - the marching was meant to happen at 12:15pm but this woman got it going at 11:45am to the surprise of the police (who did a great job handling 3-4x the number of people expected).

    I've published my talking points for the Democrats:
    1. 45 is destroying healthcare with the Obamacare repeal
    2. 45's is failing to address the real problems with terrorism - internal terrorists (I'd use the term "internal" to encompass radical Islam and radical White Supremacist criminals)
    3. 45 isn't delivering on the economy
    4. 45's immigration policy is destroying businesses - and I'd have ranchers in the West complaining about how they are already disappointed with 45.
    5. How the wall isn't going to work, and since Mexico isn't going to pay for it, the American taxpayer is now on the hook for a $22B ego trip

    Just pound on the Economy, Terrorism and ineffective immigration plans - these were the top three issues in November, and now 45 and McConnell own them.

    (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/13/trump-should-cut-his-losses/#comment-94200).

    Anybody else care to summarize the pulse of the crowd and provide the talking points people want to hear?

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    We'd all be a lot more sympathetic to 45 if he didn't gloat so much about the "leaks" (stealing) of emails from Hillary.

    So, basically you are saying, "Frak the country.. President Trump is an arrogant prick!!"

    Yea, that's kinda my point.. :D

    The leaks are nothing new, they happen all the time. It is called gossiping for the most part.

    And compare ya'all's reaction to the leaks under Obama to ya'all's reaction to the leaks under President Trump.

    That is ALSO kinda my point.. :D

    So this is far less like a 'leak' in the Snowden or DNC email sense than blah-blah-blah-whine-whine-whine.

    Of course it's "different".. But the ONLY relevant difference is that the current POTUS has a '-R' after his name...

    (fine tuned machine my derriere - John McCain even trashed that yesterday),

    Funny how you only quote McCain when he says what you want to hear.. :D

    The way to limit destructive gossiping is to have respect for leadership.

    Nice spin.. It's NOT "gossiping", it's dangerous leaks...

    Like I said, the studies in contrast between ya'all's reactions to -D people vs -R people is fascinating..

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Your talking points demonstrate PRECISELY why Democrats lost, big-league, in the last election cycle.

    A revision is desperately in order.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My apologies, Neil ... they were not YOUR talking points.

    They shouldn't be any Democrat's talking points.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, they WERE your talking points!!!

    You need to re-think them or risk irrelevancy.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, you're missing two ... :)

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A fine FTP CW! Constitutional crisis brings out the best in you. Doesn't seem have an equal impact on one of the theoretically coequal branches of Fed Gov.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "The Democratic Party is never going to win until they start to listen to the anger brewing. Even if that means "Primarying" a few of them to get the point across."

    This is at least a small step in the right direction. But we need to primary all of them.

    "...we would suggest joining the nearest protest march and tell them out in the streets. Maybe eventually they'll hear the message."

    Becoming a Pee-bagger (People for Pointless Progressive Protest) will not send the message that needs to be sent. The Dems establishment will just see that as protests against Trump.
    And we need to get the right message sent NOW. We don't have time to wait for eventually (thought it was nice of you to point out the futility in your approach- even if you didn't realize it.)
    So what you should do is encourage the rank and file Democrats and the Bernie voters to work together and tell the Dem establishment NOW that they will ALL be primaried in 2018.
    The best way to do this is for all these citizens to register at Voucher Vendetta NOW that they demand small contribution candidates for Congress in 2018. If a candidate is not financed by small contributions then whatever progressive ideals they espouse are just for show. They know where their bread is buttered.
    So please encourage citizens to take their protests and discontent to the voting booth in 2018 and to let the Big Money party establishments know that we will not fall for the divide and conquer, lesser of two evil strategy again by signing up for participation in Voucher Vendetta NOW.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From FTP#1 - That woman is a national political reporter, and is definitely not your appointments secretary, Mr. Trump! It is simply not her job to schedule meetings for you -- which you might realize if you had even the faintest idea of what a journalist actually does."

    Yes, that was cringe-worthy alright and deserves to be at the top of the list this week.

    More cringe-worthy still was that Donald Trump didn't even know what the CBC is.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm(15)- Liz (17)-
    Liz is right. That is what got us here.
    Screw what people want to hear- tell them what they need to hear (see comment 22).

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (23)-
    Canadian Broadcasting Company?

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very good, Don! :)

  27. [27] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    Everybody seems to be calling him "45". Not me. To me he will always be the pussy grabber; note, all in lower case.

    And what's with all this stuff about calling Steve Bannon a "white nationalist? To me, he's a Nazi — and here's why: if, by some malfunction of the democratic system, he got to be POTUS (the way Adolf Hitler became Reichskänzler), it wouldn't look or feel any different to a Nazi Führer. All these pieces I've read explaining the difference between Nazi and alt-right are just on the level of bad theology: about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If he looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, he's a duck.

    Oh — fair play to you, Michale, on one point. Trump is fairly, and squarely, constitutionally, the 45th President of the United States. But no landslide.

  28. [28] 
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal wrote:

    PS: So much the worse for the rest of you. (And us). But at least there are some signs that the progressives and the decent conservatives have started to extract their ostrich heads from the sand and to realise they've got to FIGHT.

    NB: the previous paragraph applies to me too The clue is in my moniker.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fight, yes. But, what is the best way to fight, DOBL?

    And, do we have a first name for you?

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Here is my idea of what Democrats' talking points should look like. I'm sure Don could clarify a few of them with better sentences and paragraphs. And, that's the whole idea ... to start a real dialogue on the issues and how best to move forward on them.

    1. Obamacare was a historic piece of legislation that attempted to protect the American people and provide affordable health insurance; it is, however, problematic and changes need to be made - let's have that debate!

    2.Terrorism must be tackled on all fronts, at home and around the world; we must get serious about what it is we are fighting against and name the terrorists for what they are - violently deranged Islamist extremists who don't care or understand the first thing about Islam or religion and use it to further their murderous fantasies of power.

    3. In America, we must stand up for our liberal democratic ideals when dealing with nations who do not share these values and whose peoples suffer from a lack of freedom and suffocation by so-called religious laws. We must lead the world, first and foremost, by the power of our example and use the example of our power judiciously.

    4.The Trump administration has revealed that it is consumed by the Republican cult of economic failure, specifically that massive tax cuts for the top 1% will be paid for through economic growth. This has never worked and we have better prescriptions for the economy that will be fair to all Americans and work to decrease income inequality. Let's talk about them and together we will find a better way.

    5. We Democrats have failed miserably in understanding the real concerns of Americans with respect to the many economic hardships that so many of us suffer through on a daily basis. We failed miserably in putting in place sound economic policies that led to the financial crisis of 2008 and, more importantly, we failed to even identify the issues that led to so many of our fellow citizens to feeling left out and looked over in a dramatically changing economy. We need to correct that failing and get serious about the issues that are of most concern to people all over this country.

    6. We are a compassionate country and we will never take compassion out of our policy proposals, especially with respect to immigration and undocumented immigrants. We welcome all people who are willing to work hard, practice the values of our great country and contribute to its greatness. Let's talk about how that translates into an effective immigration policy that ensures economic growth and America's high standing in the world.

    7. This isn't so much a talking point as it is a free tip for Democrats: next time Trump announces a campaign-style stop, be at the ready to hold a town hall type Q & A event in the aftermath of the Trump appearance, preferrably in front of the same audience, an opportunity to start a real discussion and debate on what is the best way forward on any number of issues. Of course, I think Democrats come out on top on that kind of give and take but, they will have to demonstrate an ability to effectively communicate and, with any luck, persuade and change a few minds in an ongoing persistent process of rising from the ashes of 2016.

    Of course, the hardest part will be rising above the fray of "alternative facts" in our "post-truth" political landscape. But, nothing worthwhile has ever been easy to achieve, as they say ...

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, basically you are saying, "Frak the country.. President Trump is an arrogant prick!!"

    Calm down - a little gossip in from te White House isn't going to impact the country - only embarrass 45.

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [30]:

    Here is my take at some campaign slogans (with some interpretation of my own) based on your points:

    1. "Universal Healthcare Now"

    2. "Keeping Us Safe from Terrorists Does Not Mean Hurting Helpless Kids"

    3. "America Needs to Lead the World Again in Good Ideas"

    4. "Trickle Down Failed, We Need to Rise Up"

    5. "People Before Banks"

    6. "Immigration Has Made Us Great, so Let's Get The Best of the Best for America"

    7. "No Peace for the Wicked. Trump is NOT Our President"

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Constitutional crisis brings out the best in you.

    Oh the hysterical fear mongering..

    WHO could have predicted this would happen if a person with an -R after their name was in the White House...???

    Oh... Wait... :D

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I would scrap #7 but, that's just me. :)

    I know talking points need to be pithy but, the situation today calls for persistent and consistent detailed explanation and the ability to communicate with intent to persuade.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neil-
    Those are nice sentiments (though I agree with Liz- except for 7. That will only serve as an excuse for disillusioned Trumpers to ignore 1 thru 5.)
    6 is half good. The best of the best part sounds like you want to poach all the best people from other countries that may need them, whatever best means. Can't they just be good people? Isn't that enough?

    But sentiments and slogans is all they are if you don't start with:
    1. TAKE BIG MONEY-LOSE OUR VOTES.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of poaching- We could really use you Liz.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, how about we replace 7 with:

    7. "Count Votes, not Cash"

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    1. "Universal Healthcare Now"

    Send the bill to NeilM :D

    2. "Keeping Us Safe from Terrorists Does Not Mean Hurting Helpless Kids"

    Take care of Americans BEFORE refugees...

    3. "America Needs to Lead the World Again in Good Ideas"

    Yea, "good ideas" like TrainWreckCare

    4. "Trickle Down Failed, We Need to Rise Up"

    Worked so well for Berkeley

    5. "People Before Banks"

    Except if we need money...

    6. "Immigration Has Made Us Great, so Let's Get The Best of the Best for America"

    If we were talking about Immigration, you would have a point.. But we're not, so you don't...

    7. "No Peace for the Wicked. Trump is NOT Our President"

    Then America is not your country....

    I hear Iran and North Korea are lovely and right in keeping with the intolerance of Left Wingers... :D

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Thanks - I'd love to be a poacher, based in Hawai'i, of course ... or somewhere in California. :)

    I shouldn't have left out the whole idea of getting big money out of politics involving the ever elusive constitutional amendments. That's a big lift and I think it'll be easier to do, once the Democrats earn the support of a substantial percentage of the American people, based on how Democrats handle the next few years.

    Though, we can't forget what Bernie Sanders was able to do with small contributions and what Governor Brown in California was able to do opposite Meg Whitman's highest spending non-presidential campaign in American history!

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If we were talking about Immigration, you would have a point.. But we're not, so you don't...

    So, you are saying that undocumented immigrants in your country are not significantly and positively contributing to the greatness of America?

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you believe that Americans have a right to healthcare, regardless of their individual ability to pay for it?

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (29)-
    This reminds me of one of my favorite old jokes.
    Q. Why did Kenny Rogers have shit all over his beard?
    A. Because he was looking for love in all the wrong places.

    "The answer you seek, Grasshopper, is in comment 22."
    - fictional Kung Fu episode

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you also agree, Michale, that healthcare is not like any other thing for which insurance is required or recommended?

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, how about we replace 7 with:

    7. "Count Votes, not Cash"

    Suck up! :D

    hehgehehehe J/K I actually like that one a lot... :D

    If NOT-45 had done that, we would likely have President Hillary Clinton now...

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil [37]

    That is much, much better!

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (37)-
    That is kind if like CW's call to primary a few Dems, a step in the right direction.
    But I think TAKE BIG MONEY-LOSE OUR VOTES is a much clearer message. Your slogan leaves too much wiggle room.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If NOT-45 had done that, we would likely have President Hillary Clinton now...

    Perish that thought! Heh.

    Seriously, can we please forget about the Clintons.

    If there is a silver lining to a Trump presidency, no matter how long or truncated it may be, it is that it might provide the impetus needed to make America take notice and stand up firmly for its ideals and make the changes to its democratic system that will be required to maintain its moral authority and global leadership role.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TAKE BIG MONEY - LOSE OUR VOTES

    That's a good one!

    Hey, I just now thought of an alternative name for your group...

    Citizens for the Repeal of Citizens United (CRCU)

    CRCU in court!

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    How about:

    Citizens for the Repeal of the Citizens United Scam

    or CiRCUS?

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    1. "Universal Healthcare Now"

    Send the bill to NeilM :D

    I'll tell you what Michale: You get me all of the 19% of GDP that we currently pay for Healthcare and I'll deliver a system better than the one we have and I get to pocket the savings for one year.

    I'll be the richest man on earth, but at least $1T over second place.

    After that, America can keep the savings.

    I'll but you a nice car - whatdoyasay?

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bloody bloody bloody ...

    BUY you a nice car.

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll but you a nice car - whatdoyasay?

    Couldn't happen to someone more deserving! :)

    Sorry, Michale, I couldn't possibly resist that one. I'm not that strong. Heh.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bloody bloody bloody ...

    Indeed!

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't worry, Neil ... above I said I'd love to be a poacher when I actually meant that I'd love to be poached!

    :-)

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CiRCUS?

    I think you'd have to come up with something for the 'i' ...

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't worry, Neil ... above I said I'd love to be a poacher when I actually meant that I'd love to be poached!

    Yeah - I wondered what you were going to poach in Hawai'i ;)

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    On the other hand, don't we want to get away from the circus, not run with it?

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Ci"tizens - that is why I lowercased the 'i'

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    On the other hand, don't we want to get away from the circus, not run with it?

    Everybody loves the Circus ... right?

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah - I wondered what you were going to poach in Hawai'i ;)

    Some mouth-watering kalua pua'a, it should go without saying ... :)

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Everybody loves the Circus ... right?

    I could grow on me. Though, the circus has lost a lot of currency.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Ci"tizens - that is why I lowercased the 'i'

    I see. That could be explained, I suppose ...

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn - it!!!

    I could grow on me.

    I'm going to quit while I'm sort of ahead ... until much later ...

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll never understand myself, that much is for sure!

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    Everybody loves the Circus ... right?

    I could grow on me. Though, the circus has lost a lot of currency.

    Elizabeth:

    I lived in Quebec for a while and had a French-Canadian girlfriend. She and her family loved the Circus and she took me to one of the local small troops that tour the Province. My Canadian relatives are Ontario based Scottish Protestants and have less affinity (I'm being polite) for the Circus way of life.

    Is the Circus still a thing in Canada, or was it always only Quebec?

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I think Senator McCain may testing the waters about serious opposition. I sent this E-mail to offer a little encouragement:

    As a senior Republican senator, you indirectly represent me. The President has brazenly overstepped his power and his competency. He is a menace to rule of law and separation of power. There is no reason to believe he can be educated or reformed. Talk is cheap. Assert Separation of Powers. Get the plunger and clear the blockage. Pence will have to do, but repeat as necessary. Future generations will judge you harshly if you miss your moment. You shouldn't have to do this, but be a hero again. FYI, your E-mail is very clunky.

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (49)-
    How could you call that a scam?
    There was no problem with Big Money and politics before Citizens United. Repealing CU with a constitutional amendment that will take away many of our rights will make everything unicorns and rainbows.
    (59)-
    Everybody loves the circus except the elephants (literal). The figurative elephants love the circus so much they let a carnival barker become their presidential candidate.
    Liz (55)- how about Idiots?

  68. [68] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Re-66

    Powers that aren't exercised tend to atrophy.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:
  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Mark Sanford is another Republican 45-baiter - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/mark-sanford-profile-214791

    Wasn't he the guy that the Democrats excoriated over his extra-maritial affairs and his governor-ship??

    But, if he attacks President Trump, all of the sudden he's yer cat's meow...

    Yea.. No Party slavery in play there.. :D

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    But, if he attacks President Trump, all of the sudden he's yer cat's meow...

    If two dogs are rolling in the mud, just because I point out one of them doesn't mean I'm saying "That's My Dog".

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like the BBC are pissed at not being called out by Snowflake-in-Chief in his tweet:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39015559

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    It's real simple..

    If Mark Sanford is a scumbag for cheating on his wife and neglecting his GOV duties to chase his mistress down to Rio, then he should STILL be a scumbag, even if he opposes President Trump??

    Am I wrong???

    "Yer not wrong."
    -God, AKA Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS (66)-
    Admire your effort.
    (68)-
    Agreed.
    That is why Democrats and anyone that wants candidates financed by small contributions should exercise their power and send their representatives a message NOW by registering with Voucher Vendetta that they will only vote for small contribution candidates for Congress in 2018.
    If a citizen wants small contribution candidates in 2018 and future elections and doesn't demand it now then the citizen is giving up before the battle has even started.

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good point, it is scumbag vs. scumbag.

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    Because we know that 45 was cheating on his first wife as well.

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    If two dogs are rolling in the mud, just because I point out one of them doesn't mean I'm saying "That's My Dog".

    But if one slams, attacks and castigates the dog for crapping all over the carpet and then turns around and praises that dog to high heaven the next day when he bites President Trump.....

    There is a little bit of incongruity there.. A bit of disconnect...

    Don'tcha think??? :D

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    But if one slams, attacks and castigates the dog for crapping all over the carpet and then turns around and praises that dog to high heaven the next day when he bites President Trump.....

    Yeah, but if one sees two dogs rolling in muck one day and then sees one dog chasing the other one down the street the next day, and says "look, there's those two bloody horrible dogs again that were humping in the street yesterday", he isn't saying "Good Boy".

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    In other news..

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-storm-los-angeles-20170217-story.html

    How much does anyone wanna bet that California will be begging for federal aid in the coming months....

    Maybe if California spent more on taking care of their dams and such and less on illegal immigrant criminals, they wouldn't be facing such disasters...

    I'm just sayin'.....

  80. [80] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kudos to CW for beating Nicholas Kristof of the NYT to the 25th amendment solution to Trump by about 3 weeks...and CW's treatment of the subject is better!

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    Maybe if California spent more on taking care of their dams and such and less on illegal immigrant criminals, they wouldn't be facing such disasters...

    One plus of the lower Federal taxes 45 and the clown show are proposing is that less blue state $ will be bailing out red states.

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting three party analysis of the U.S. from Chris Ladd. As the Republican Party withers and wastes outside of the South, the 2% swing every four years in the balance of our demographics will mean progressives will be unstoppable in good time.

    All the gloating from the right and the doom and gloom from the left misses the real story of America - and one crazy year does not define an era.

    We all need to stay calm and aim high - people want good healthcare, good jobs, a future for their kids and safe streets - these are the policies the progressives excel in. The Sturm und Drang cowardice from the shrill right wing ("American carnage" for Pete's sake) will always lose in the end.

    http://politicalorphans.com/americas-shadow-third-party/

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    What should the Indivisible movement's rallying cry be?

    * You Work for Us

    * Bring Back Leaders... No Bottom-Feeders

    * We Need a Leader... Not a Lying Tweeter

    * Power to the People... Not a Fascist Creeple

    Okay, mine suck. :)

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No argument there. :)

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    One plus of the lower Federal taxes 45 and the clown show are proposing is that less blue state $ will be bailing out red states.

    Yea, that's the claim..

    We'll see how much California squeals for Federal aid because CA spends too much on coddling criminals and not enough of taking care of American citizens...

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    * You Work for Us

    That was a great one for the Obama Administration..

    Okay, mine suck. :)

    Nope. They are great... Just an administration too late...

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Kudos to CW for beating Nicholas Kristof of the NYT to the 25th amendment solution to Trump by about 3 weeks...and CW's treatment of the subject is better!

    Why don't ya'all just cut thru all the felgercarb and advocate for the assassination of the president??

    Because that's what many of ya'all REALLY want.. :D

  88. [88] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE TP 7. Patrick Park is one remarkably tough hombre. If I wanted to break a prisoner, I'd make him sit through 75 viewings of the Sound of Music. Granted, Park doesn't claim to have survived 75 CONSECUTIVE showings, but that's probably because he's been trying to build up his tolerance by gradually increasing the frequency and intensity of exposure. Even so, he should have his blood sugar checked regularly. The human body can only process so much Anschluss flavored treacle. I salute you soon-to-be ambassador to Austria Park. You are more than qualified.

    Watch Man In The High Castle on Amazon Prime!

    https://vimeo.com/173250809

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean, I haven't seen such hatred of a sitting President since the GOP hated so much on Obama!! :D

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh Neeeiiiillll??? :D

    Remember how you said Merkel was now the leader of the free world???

    Merkel Might Lose After All
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/martin-schulz-candidacy-has-merkel-on-the-defensive-a-1134302.html#ref=nl-international

    Apparently, not for long... :D

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    You do know that Merkel is center right and Schulz is center left?

    So you are basically cheering for Obama over Jeb Bush in our terms.

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you want the German version of 45, look and see how the AfD are going.

  93. [93] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neil M-81

    Yes! Piss ant states are over represented in Congress and get an F'ing tax subsidy to boot. Enough!

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    There was a good "Planet Money" podcast this week. They looked at a country that elected a populist President that raised import taxes 30-40% to bring manufacturing back. The President also banned cell phones (including iPhones) that weren't make in the home country so Blackberry build a dedicated plant in a remote, disadvantaged area that voted overwhelmingly for the President.

    You don't need a degree in macroeconomics to figure out the disaster that befell the President and the country when they pursued isolationism.

    As the wheels came off the bus, the President created a personal media (propaganda) wing to tout the "successes". The regular media were vilified and opponents were attacked for "plotting coup d'etats". Conspiracy theories abounded to explain the failure of the economy on everything but government policies.

    The President was replaced in 2015, but you still can't buy an iPhone there.

    We don't even need to look at history to see why 45 is a disaster - just look at similar politicians and policies from the present.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/02/17/515850029/episode-755-the-phone-at-the-end-of-the-world

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Uh oh, I'm about to become a contrarian. I really hate sticking my neck out like this, but here goes...

    CW -

    Regarding the MDDoTW award: I very very respectfully disagree. Not about Jennifer Palmieri's boneheaded comments (to the equally boneheaded Chuck Todd) - of course the American people want the minimum wage raised to $15/hr, considering that if it had been indexed back in the seventies, it would now be well above $25/hr! I do not disagree with that.

    What I do disagree with is the conclusion that, since the Democrats lost this election by just .01% of the vote, and that in states that have been battleground states for better than a decade now, and one of which, Wisconsin, was the home state of the RNC chair, who knew exactly where the potential votes were. I'd bet that he was the guy who told Trump to go to Eau Claire for his final campaign stop. Priebus is, after all, the reason that Scott Walker wasn't bounced out after his first disastrous year as governor.

    It's hard to say, because a decent impartial 'autopsy' of the election hasn't been attempted (or ordered!) yet, but my needle points to two reasons for the election's weird result: 1) too many people thought that Hillary's win was a lock and stayed home, and 2) too many folks on the left bought into the absurd notion that anyone, including Trump, was preferable to Hillary, and either stayed home or threw their votes away on 3rd party candidates. For one reason why, refer to point 1. For another reason why, look at how many on the left bought into Putin's fake news campaign.

    And then there's the 5M+ votes that Hillary got that were wasted by the electoral college. She won the popular vote, and won every blue state by substantial margins. Hillary also soundly beat Bernie at the ballot box during the primaries; that should count for something when divvying up the literal spoils.

    Then there's the map, and it points to the real reason that Democrats aren't winning: one look at the map confirms that if there were ever such a thing as an Urban vs. Rural election, this was it. Except for that sliver of blue that defines the coasts, nearly all of the Democratic votes came from in or near cities and large towns. Nearly every city has a 'beltway' these days, and outside of those, Democratic votes drop off fast.

    Now look at a primary map, by county: Hillary won the cities in nearly every instance. Either Bernie's rural supporters were spread too thin to affect the general election, or they were conned into thinking that their votes didn't count (point #1 above), or they just stayed home. That's what cost us the election. Maybe. We need an autopsy to be sure.

    Sure, the left is energized now, but the left, you recall, wasn't as thrilled with the ACA as the beleaguered center, the folks the ACA was actually aimed at. Those large numbers of protesters include a lot of Hillary supporters, in other words, not just aggrieved leftists. Palmieri would have been better to say that, yes, the issue of the minimum wage may be hot with the left right now, but that's not all that's happening.

    The upshot is still that, assuming the left can be persuaded to stay knit into the Democratic coalition, the best opportunity for Democrats to pick up votes in the next election would be to peel off disaffected centrist Republicans. A hard swing to the left would doom that effort and hand Trump another undeserved win. That's what Palmieri should have said.

  96. [96] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ow. Sorry about the length of that post.

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Para 2: What I do disagree with is the conclusion that the Democrats need to make unnecessary policy changes to appease the left. The Democrats..(continue)

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [95] Hear hear.

    If 80,000 people had voted the other way we'd be reading about the disaster facing the Republican Party - shattered after a disastrous hijacking by the orange clown, barely hanging on to the Senate and facing a 3M+ vote loss nationwide.

    The right would be wondering how long gerrymandering would keep them in power in the House as they faced a third Democratic term.

    The Democrats would be patting themselves on the back for repelling their populist wing led by Bernie because they read the country right and were firming up the crucial center.

    In 2017 the Democrats are primarily lacking a rabble rouser who can whip up emotion. With 66 million people voting for progressive causes, I'm confident we'll find our person.

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another good point Balthasar makes is about the Urban/Rural divide.

    1. America is getting progressively more urban:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_statistics

    Urbanization is progressing to the tune of 1-2% per decade at the moment, but the overall stats hide large regional differences - the more rural South and MidWest are becoming Urban at 2-3x the pace of the already highly urban West and NorthEast. This, coupled with the declining white majority numbers are two inexorable demographic trends working against the Republicans.

    2. The Democrats can tailor their message to appeal to white rural voters a lot easier than Republicans can win over non-White urbanites. The most angry voters in 2016 were rural white voters and they voted against the establishment, represented by the party in the White House and the long political career of Hillary. In four years time the Republicans will be the establishment and unless 45 is able to turn back the mechanism of capitalism, things will not look significantly different for these angry whites.

    Obama claimed some time after the election that he could have beaten 45. Who knows, but I think he would have whipped up more emotion and fought 45 for the poor white vote far more effectively than Hillary did.

  100. [100] 
    John M wrote:

    With all due respect to Elizabeth and Neilm, you guys, along with most of the Democratic Establishment, are STILL missing the whole point of the Trump phenomenon AND the Bernie Sanders campaign.

    The only one who even comes close is Don Harris with his Voucher Vendetta, and even he isn't quite spot on.

    Your whole list of logical talking points are all well and good, but they are NEVER going to work! Why? Because they don't RESONATE with people on an EMOTIONAL level.

    As exhibit A, we have our own PERFECT example right here of the average Trump voter, and Bernie Sanders voter, for that matter, in MICHALE. You can present Michale with a totally and completely logical and factual reason until you are blue in the face, and he will STILL insist that Trump won in a landslide if you only put it in the proper context. That's why I sometimes resort to Star Trek quotes with him. Because THOSE REACH him on an EMOTIONAL level.

    As other illustrations I offer the successful gay marriage campaigns, both for and against, as well as the Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns. They were ONLY successful once, and as long as they were able to, touch people on an EMOTIONAL and VISCERAL level.

    I heard one woman tell Bernie Sanders that she would have voted for him instead of Trump, but she TUNED him out once he started talking about a free college education for all. What WAS appealing was the EMOTIONAL fight of the little guy against the big guy. That's WHAT mattered. NOT the bullet point talking points.

    Same thing with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. What finally GOT to Americans was not logical arguments, but the images of little girls killed in a church bombing and people getting attacked with water canons and police dogs just for peaceful marching. Those EMOTIONAL appeals are what finally turned things around.

    It is also why Benghazi worked so well against Hillary Clinton. Republicans KNOW this. It was because they were able to whip up and use a VISCERAL EMOTIONAL hatred of Hillary among a large section of the electorate.

    Democrats and Progressives NEED to learn this lesson and quickly just like the gay community did.

    Remember the chants of "Lock Her Up!" that were so effective?

    How about turning those around and start yelling them at Trump every time he makes an appearance?

    Why not begin the call for his impeachment by yelling "Lock Him UP" at him? It WORKED for the Republicans.

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    John M. [100]

    I think you missed the part where I completely agree with you:

    In 2017 the Democrats are primarily lacking a rabble rouser who can whip up emotion. With 66 million people voting for progressive causes, I'm confident we'll find our person.

    :)

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (83)-
    "You Work for Us" is good.
    One way to make sure they work for you is
    "TAKE BIG MONEY- LOSE OUR VOTES".
    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Up until 2008, I had always considered myself to be a moderate/liberal Republican. I left the party because I couldn't handle the level of blatant dishonesty they demonstrated. Their egos do not tolerate any self-evaluations that do not offer glowing reviews. Trump claiming that the rolling out of his policies have gone extremely smoothly is one such example. I don't like being lied to. The GOP has made lying one of the cornerstones of the party's foundation; and no one should accept that.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be hypochondriacs bent on self-defeat. Democrats will never hold their heads high when they lose a close election. They spiral into a fit of self-loathing, attack members of the party that don't share the exact same views as they hold as not being a "TRUE" progressive or Democrat. The recent election was not the disaster that everyone keeps claiming it was.

    The GOP sent the last eight years doing every imaginable thing they could think of to damage the American people's trust in their government. The country was in horrible shape, regardless of how things improved. The propaganda wing of the GOP did an amazing job of putting out misinformation that created an alternate universe within our own borders. Despite all of that, Clinton still received 3 million more votes than Trump did. To say the Democrats message failed requires you to ignore the reality of the election.

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting fact (at least to me): If you sort the list of states by urbanization you can see the blue bias of more urban states to the red bias of the more rural states:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_statistics

  105. [105] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm wrote:

    "John M. [100]

    I think you missed the part where I completely agree with you:

    In 2017 the Democrats are primarily lacking a rabble rouser who can whip up emotion. With 66 million people voting for progressive causes, I'm confident we'll find our person."

    I stand corrected. :-D Thank you, I did miss that.

  106. [106] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Are you the founder of VV? I went to the website and saw the founder's bio page, but was surprised that the person's name is no where to be found. Not sure if that is an overlooked mistake or if it was intentional.

  107. [107] 
    John M wrote:

    OTHER examples of politicians who were successful BECAUSE they connected with people on an EMOTIONAL level:

    FDR and his FIRESIDE chats, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

    John F. Kennedy "Ich ben ein Berliner" "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

    Martin Luther King J.R. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

    Robert Kennedy "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

    Barack Obama "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

    Hope and Change even got MICHALE at least for Obama's FIRST term.

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar (95)-
    "...too many folks on the left bought into the absurd notion that anyone, including Trump, was preferable to Hillary and either stayed home or threw their votes away on a third party candidate."
    Or maybe they decided that Hillary was equally as bad as Trump or simply bad enough that it didn't make a difference to them if they didn't get blackmailed into voting for Hillary. Maybe they felt they would lose either way so they either gave up and stayed home or decided to try to work toward changing the lesser of evil narrative for future elections by voting for a third party candidate.
    By the way, throwing away your vote on a third party candidate is usually explained by "Your candidate did not win."
    Neither did Hillary.
    Did Hillary voters also throw away their vote?
    And not every person that supported Bernie or voted for a third party candidate is from the left.
    I am not from the left- though I often feel left out.
    For example, Voucher Vendetta is based on the free-market principle of supply and demand. Maybe that's why those on left that could benefit so much from supporting this approach have such a hard time accepting it.
    You know, that ideological bias that occasionally gets mentioned in the comments.

  109. [109] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M: [100]

    I have said for years that I believe that more people were influenced to support marriage equality by Westboro Baptist Church than by any other factor. Getting everyone to agree on a subject is next to impossible. We all have our own opinions on everything and our opinions are always the correct ones! Westboro did the impossible... They gave EVIL a face that everyone could agree on!

    Their protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers were disgusting and shameful. So much so that people had to do something to stop them. The human walls that were formed to block WBC from being seen by the families of the deceased were some of the most amazing displays of our country's greatness that I have ever witnessed.

    You had pro-gun and gun-control advocates standing side by side; pro-life and pro-choice people put aside their differences; people who had never protested a thing in their lives were willing to come out early, often in horrible weather, and they stood shoulder to shoulder with people they might never otherwise have ever had contact with all for the same reason: to keep EVIL out of their town! WBC became the face of the anti-gay movement...and no one wanted to look like them! It caused people to really think about their beliefs and to understand the pain people suffer when they aren't granted equal rights.

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    John M [107]

    I think we can make a claim for Reagan as well.

    So if we look at the Presidents since JFK:

    JFK: Emotional Orator

    Johnson: Coattails - JFK sympathy

    Nixon: ?

    Carter: Coattails - Not Nixon or Republican

    Reagan: Emotional Orator

    Bush 1: Coattails - Reagan's third term

    Clinton: Emotional Orator

    Bush: Battles of the Boring - Bush, Gore and Kerry couldn't warm up a muffin, let alone a room

    Obama: Emotional Orator

    45: Clown impersonator

  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig [66]

    Great idea! I used to be such an admirer of McCain. I voted for him in the primaries in 2008, but when he won the nomination, he flipped from being a moderate to being an ultra-conservative almost overnight. Then when he brought Palin on board, I knew he had completely sold out. I'd love it if he would stand up and do what is best for America instead of what is best for the Republican Puppetmasters!

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John M (100)-
    Thanks. Unfortunately, being closer doesn't seem to be good enough. But it's still the best "endorsement" (?) I've got so far.
    Robert Reich did reply with an email that said "I think it's a great idea. Thanks for sending it."
    But considering that he has not written in over a year since sending the email yours seems much more sincere.
    Bengazi and the emails only worked on the Trump supporters that were easily duped. That was his target audience. I remember many times during the campaign trump would say something stupid and my mom (A Hillary supporter) would say that should finish him. I would answer that he was not talking to you because he knows he can't fool us. He talking to the people he can fool because with them he doesn't need us.
    For me, supporting Bernie was about character not issues or emotions (the free college was a stupid idea because it treats the symptom not the problem).
    And proving the right character started for me by Bernie running the small contribution campaign. That should be the demand made by all Democrats of their 2018 candidates.

  113. [113] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (106)-
    Thanks for visiting the website.
    Yes, I am the founder (and only active member that I know of. Other than one person everyone else registered is someone that registered as favor so it wouldn't look like I was the only one registered.)
    While I am the founder I am still waiting for others to find it. At least the only way to go is up.
    While the website has not been updated recently, nothing in our political system has changed much (at least not for the better) so other than a few dates the essence is still relevant.
    The name is on the founder section on the Home page but is not on the page when you hit the learn more button. Hadn't noticed that or just figured it would be better to leave it alone because it was difficult and time consuming to get the web design company to fix any of the many things they didn't seem to be able to get done or get right. (At least that qualifies them to work in the Trump administration.)

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    correction 112-
    it should be "...he has not written any articles about Voucher Vendetta in over a year..."

  115. [115] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting take on 45 - not an isolationist, but an America first militarist - in other words itching to use the military, but not really caring about allies or anybody but America.

    Given that we have overspent and are emotionally over invested in the Military, this might be the real danger of 45.

    Does 45 want a war?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/17/quit-calling-donald-trump-an-isolationist-its-an-insult-to-isolationism/

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    With all due respect to Elizabeth and Neilm ...

    I am sure I'm not going to like what comes next ...

    ... you guys, along with most of the Democratic Establishment, are STILL missing the whole point of the Trump phenomenon AND the Bernie Sanders campaign.

    I hate it when I miss the point! :)

    Seriously, I also agree with you with respect to your point about connecting on an emotional level. I mean, everything we do has that aspect to it, to one degree or another.

    But, that doesn't preclude Democrats from making the case for why voters should choose them over the Republican party of today and from using cogent arguments based on fact in an effort to persuade voters with a positive message and contrast it with what we hear from the Republicans.

    If Democrats can't infuse all of that with enough emotion to make a significant connection with voters then they may as well throw in the towel.

    Why not begin the call for his impeachment by yelling "Lock Him UP" at him? It WORKED for the Republicans.

    That would be good. Democrats acting like anti-Enlightenment Republicans. Why is the thought of 'death spiral' dancing in my head ...

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    It's hard to say, because a decent impartial 'autopsy' of the election hasn't been attempted (or ordered!) yet, but my needle points to two reasons for the election's weird result: 1) too many people thought that Hillary's win was a lock and stayed home, and 2) too many folks on the left bought into the absurd notion that anyone, including Trump, was preferable to Hillary, and either stayed home or threw their votes away on 3rd party candidates. For one reason why, refer to point 1. For another reason why, look at how many on the left bought into Putin's fake news campaign.

    I don't think you've properly accounted for your points 1 & 2.

    The thing about 'Putin's fake news' is that, apparently, it wasn't fake. Unless I missed the part where anyone in the DNC or Podesta's office discredited the substance of the leaks. That's number one.

    And, number two, why don't you lay blame where the bulk of it belongs - at the feet of the candidate, herself (and her campaign-sabotaging husband, of course) and Democrats, in general, who tragically misread the angst of the electorate and failed to understand their role in causing it.

    Your point about the urban-rural divide is interesting. How much time did Hillary spend in those parts of the country? And, forget about red and blue states - those are tired old fault lines that Democrats need to discard if they hope to persuade a substantial majority of Americans to vote for them.

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ow. Sorry about the length of that post.

    That is nothing to be sorry about. Besides, it wasn't that long and it was a good read. :)

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Is the Circus still a thing in Canada, or was it always only Quebec?

    The traditional circus with exotic animals is still around but support for that sort of thing is waning, I believe.

    The modern circus is alive and well in the form of Cirque du Soleil which, of course, was born in Quebec. I have yet to see one of their shows.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    The recent election was not the disaster that everyone keeps claiming it was...To say the Democrats message failed requires you to ignore the reality of the election.

    Oh, I think the recent election was the very epitome of a disaster, the emotional toll of which intensifies, seemingly, with each passing day.

    I have no idea what you mean by that last bit. Unless you are saying that the Democrats had a great candidate and a wonderful message but lost the election as a result of factors beyond their control. If Democrats really believe that, then we're all doomed.

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    I have no idea what you mean by that last bit. Unless you are saying that the Democrats had a great candidate and a wonderful message but lost the election as a result of factors beyond their control. If Democrats really believe that, then we're all doomed.

    Yep... The Left is definitely doomed..

    Because THAT is exactly what the Democrats believe..

    They believe that Fake News, Russians and the FBI lost the election..

    That NOT-45 was the perfect candidate and would have been a perfect POTUS...

    The Left can't even COMPREHEND that it's their message that is not resonating with patriotic Americans..

    The Democrat Party is simply ...er... Biden their time :D until immigrants and minorities are the majority in this country and the Party thinks that will insure their victory at the ballot box...

    What they don't get is a very large portion of those immigrants and minorities voted for President Trump this time around...

    The Democrat Party is locked into this notion that THEY cannot be the problem?? It MUST be external factors and the Party will simply keep making the same mistakes over and over again because they reason that, eventually, external factors will work in their favor one day...

    The Democrat Party as it exists today, is incompatible with patriotic American values..

    If the Dems ever want to be in the majority again or in the White House again, they need to come to grips with that and change accordingly..

    Or, they can just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again, hoping for a different result..

    As an aside, I know you don't like the point of "patriotic Americans" but THAT is the ENTIRE reason why President Trump won..

    He appealed to the patriotism of the American people...

    And the rest is history...

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    As exhibit A, we have our own PERFECT example right here of the average Trump voter, and Bernie Sanders voter, for that matter, in MICHALE. You can present Michale with a totally and completely logical and factual reason until you are blue in the face, and he will STILL insist that Trump won in a landslide if you only put it in the proper context. That's why I sometimes resort to Star Trek quotes with him. Because THOSE REACH him on an EMOTIONAL level.

    You actually have it back-asswards, JM. :D

    Very VERY rarely does ANYONE here *EVER* try to reach me on a logical or rational level..

    As we have seen quite recently, most everyone here tries to "reach" me on an EMOTIONAL level.... Which I respond to equally emotionally, to my chagrin...

    Give you a perfect example..

    You and I had a discussion before regarding President Trump's intention to ignore the court order regarding his Travel Restrictions EO.. You had stated that Obama never ignored court orders.. I proved you wrong, that Obama DID ignore court orders, just like President Trump did..

    You reacted emotionally and ignored the discussion from that point on.. The LOGICAL and RATIONAL response would be to concede the point...

    I can find a PLETHORA of examples of ya'all forgoing logic and reacting emotionally to my comments, but that would entail dredging up hostility that is best left boiling just below the surface.. :D

    No, my friend.. The exact opposite of what you stated is what is going on here...

    If anyone comes at me with logic then I respond with logic... If anyone comes at me emotionally, well...

    "We can be faithful to that as well.."
    -President Jack Ryan, EXECUTIVE ORDERS

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    Having said that, I will say this..

    You are dead on ballz accurate when you say that President Trump connected with ALL Americans on an emotional level..

    Feelings of patriotism amongst his supporters and feelings of hate and envy amongst his detractors..

    So, I readily concede that emotionalism is a HUGE factor in elections.. Especially the 2016 election...

    You are dead on ballz accurate there..

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Nowhere is the Democrat Party delusion more profound in Democrats than their faith in the Popular Vote...

    In and of itself, the Vanity Vote is completely and utterly irrelevant...

    In 2016, it was even MORE irrelevant due to the fact that to near totality of the Vanity Vote "win" was concentrated in ONE SINGLE STATE.. AND the most liberal state in the country to boot..

    Basically, what those who tout the Vanity Vote are saying is that NOT-45 won the election because the single most liberal state in the country overwhelmingly supported NOT-45... That's ridiculous...

    Take away the outlier liberal state and NOT-45's Vanity Vote "win" is a fraction of what it was...

    It's like saying that a Republican candidate has a mandate from the entire country because Texas or Alaska overwhelmingly voted for him or her...

    What the Vanity Vote lovers are saying is that, as California goes, so goes the rest of the country..

    And THAT, thank the gods, is completely and utter bullpuckies....

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why do you hate California, Michale? :)

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    You are dead on ballz accurate when you say that President Trump connected with ALL Americans on an emotional level..

    On that we can agree. He makes me want to vomit. What a clown.

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well another farce from 45 - this time in Florida.

    Can't somebody break it to him that the election is over and it is time to get to work trying to fix the mess he has already created? He should be spending weekends in DC repairing the disaster that his regime is, but instead he is swanning off to Florida to entertain himself.

    Here are just a few things that need some attention:

    1. of 696 names he is expected to provide to the senate for confirmation he is well over 600 short

    2. He has no National Security Advisor

    3. If he is going to pick Tillerson's deputy, he should get on with it

    4. His approval numbers are in the toilet and there is a loud flushing sound - time to stop playing to the hyper partisan fanboys and try to be a President for everybody

    5. If he is going to repeal Obamacare it is long past the time we saw his replacement plan - he promised one when Price was confirmed - well news flash, Price was confirmed early this month - time to put up or shut up

    6. The jobless rate is going up, he can't coast on Obama's economic coattails for much longer.

    And I'm sure there are yet more additional things he could be doing for the country in DC on the weekend. He works for us, and he isn't doing a very good job - at least 60% of us think so.

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Why do you hate California, Michale? :)

    It's my home state. And the Left has destroyed it...

    Hundreds of thousands of people in harms way because so-called leaders in California thought it more important to take care of illegal immigrant criminals rather than their own citizens..

    Neil,

    On that we can agree. He makes me want to vomit. What a clown.

    Yep.. And, unless you live in California, you are in the minority.. :D

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    . He makes me want to vomit. What a clown.

    That's how I came to think of Obama..

    And I am just as accurate as you are. :D

  130. [130] 
    michale wrote:

    Can't somebody break it to him that the election is over and it is time to get to work trying to fix the mess he has already created?

    Oh puuulleeessseeeee...

    Obama NEVER left campaign mode... You never had a problem with that then...

    You just don't like the fact that patriotic Americans LOVE their President. :D

    4. His approval numbers are in the toilet and there is a loud flushing sound - time to stop playing to the hyper partisan fanboys and try to be a President for everybody

    And yet his numbers continue to climb.. :D

    Back up to 44.9 in the 2nd relevant poll.... :D

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    Back up to 44.9 in the 2nd relevant poll.... :D

    The first, of course, being the ballot box..

    And the results of THAT "poll" is self-evident..

    And THAT is what really chaps yer arse.. Not that Trump is president, but the fact that he beat your chosen champion, the most "qualified" and "honest" candidate in the history of the planet.

    Not only beat NOT-45, but DEVASTATED her...

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nobody of any significant intellect thought Bush 2 was much of a thinker, and his ongoing battles with the English language were always a source of amusement.

    However 'W' looks like Albert Einstein compared to the confederacy of dunces unfolding in front of us that is the 45 presidency, and even at his public-speaking-worst 'W' sounds like Winston Churchill in comparison with what we witnessed last Thursday.

    Let's just revel in his "Peak Idiot" moment one more time:

    “You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons, like lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things.”

  133. [133] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Elizabeth,

    The thing about 'Putin's fake news' is that, apparently, it wasn't fake.

    Besides, does it really matter who hacked Mrs. Clinton’s election campaign team database? Does it? What really matters is the content shown to the community. This is what the discussion should be held about. There is no need to distract the attention of the community from the essence of the subject substituting it with secondary questions dealing with the search of those who did it.
    - Vladimir Putin, 2016

    This, I imagine, would be exactly what Richard Nixon would have said, had the Watergate break-in been successful, and leaked DNC documents been revealed to the press.

    Nixon's list of crimes, we now know, did not stop with petty criminal acts. In 1968, he convinced the South Vietnamese to back out of a peace deal, promising them a better deal if he was elected. That was an act of treason.

    If any of Trump's team colluded with the Russians - even to merely influence the US election through the selective leaking of hacked material, though that appears to be the proverbial tip of the iceburg - that too is treason, regardless of their partisan motivation.

    Information wars have become a daily reality. The co-opted media prefer to present a distorted picture of what is going on to suit entrenched interests, and planted news stories have begun not only to ruin individual lives but also to redefine the political landscape of entire countries. - kremlin.ru statement by Putin, Feb. 2017

    Okay, don't call it fake news. Call it disinformation. Call it quasi-journalism.
    Just admit that a significant portion of the American public just got played hard by a true master of the craft, a spy who knows just what buttons to push, or thinks he does: Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar writes that Putin believes that House of Cards is all one needs to know about American politics (the Washington Post has responded: House of Cards is the last show you should rely on to understand US politics).

    Lyndon Johnson discovered Nixon's treachery before he left office. He was at the time presiding over a country that was coming apart at the seams over the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, the counterculture, and even feminism. The last thing he could afford to do was throw the entire political system into disarray by charging the newly-elected president of treason, so he reluctantly kept the secret to himself, and died shortly after Nixon took office. It was many years after Nixon's death before his treachery became public knowledge.

    You might say, "I didn't like the b**ch anyway" and you have every right to that opinion, but don't for one second doubt that a crime has been committed - an organized con job was run on the American people - and that should animate us far more than our petty preferences for one candidate over another. Nixon's treason cost us tens of thousands of lives. But for sheer luck, it could have cost me my father. What price will we pay as a nation if we allow Trump (and by extension, Putin) to get away with this crime? Will we have to accept Frank Underwood as a model of American politics after all?

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the "Peak Idiot" moment had some strong competition, such as this little gem (sort of like K2 to the "Uranium" Everest moment:

    “As far as the general’s concerned, when I first heard about it, I said huh, that doesn’t sound wrong. My counsel came, Don McGahn, White House counsel, and he told me and I asked him, he can speak very well for himself. He said he doesn’t think anything is wrong, you know, really didn’t think.”

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    However 'W' looks like Albert Einstein compared to the confederacy of dunces unfolding in front of us that is the 45 presidency, and even at his public-speaking-worst 'W' sounds like Winston Churchill in comparison with what we witnessed last Thursday.

    I respect that opinion...

    But, as has been well established, it's an opinion borne of partisan bias and not actual fact..

    “You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons, like lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things.”

    "I have been touring all 57 states"
    -Barack Obama

    'nuff said....

  136. [136] 
    michale wrote:

    This, I imagine, would be exactly what Richard Nixon would have said, had the Watergate break-in been successful, and leaked DNC documents been revealed to the press.

    AND it would have been EXACTLY what ya'all and the Democrats would have said if it had been the RNC that was hacked..

    Proof?? Ya'all's reactions to the serious leaks from the Trump administration..

    Just admit that a significant portion of the American public just got played

    Why would anyone admit that?? It's factually inaccurate, been PROVEN to be factually inaccurate and is TOTALLY based on nothing but biased ideology..

    You might say, "I didn't like the b**ch anyway" and you have every right to that opinion, but don't for one second doubt that a crime has been committed - an organized con job was run on the American people -

    I am not sure, but I think I hear violins in the background playing, CRY ME A RIVER....

    Ya'all lost.. Fair, square and totally legally....

    Get over it already...

  137. [137] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's factually inaccurate, been PROVEN to be factually inaccurate and is TOTALLY based on nothing but biased ideology..

    No, it's based on the assessments of the entire intelligence community and the FBI. Despite 45's attempts to silence the messengers and disparage the sources, it remains the intelligence community's assessment at this minute.

    I am not sure, but I think I hear violins in the background playing, CRY ME A RIVER....

    Now who's blinded by partisanship? Allegations of treason, backed by solid intelligence, don't phase you? Exactly what sort of patriot are you?

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    No, it's based on the assessments of the entire intelligence community and the FBI.

    It's based on the leaks from Obama sycophants that have never been factually substantiated..

    These are the facts..

    Now who's blinded by partisanship? Allegations of treason, backed by solid intelligence, don't phase you?

    They would if they were actually backed up by solid intelligence..

    But they are backed up by nothing but partisan bigotry, innuendo and wishful thinking...

    Exactly what sort of patriot are you?

    The kind who DOESN'T want Open Borders and have the US just be another cog in the globalist corporatist machine...

    In other words, I am an AMERICAN patriot, not a Democrat patriot...

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:
  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    The 2016 election was a fair, free and legitimate election..

    So says Obama and, surprisingly enough, he gets one right.. :D

    Donald Trump won and he is the legitimate POTUS..

    YOUR POTUS..

    These are the facts....

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well I thoroughly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos on Bill Maher. Milo is obviously a performance artist of the highest caliber and is cashing in using the same tactics as Ann Coulter. However Coulter's oeuvre resembles a crayon drawing pinned to the fridge by a fruit magnet compared with the Mona Lisa that Milo is producing.

    As a Brit/Greek, he obviously doesn't need to worry about the impact on this nation of his artistry – he isn’t trying to break his homeland but the hated country across the pond from his world of Cambridge’s spires and London’s night clubs. He can also console himself with the fact that the unwitting extras in his performance art like to think of themselves as the only "patriotic Americans" (we don't need to look hard to see our own consumer of Breitbart's propaganda and unsuspecting actor in Milo’s artwork). The irony is simply delicious.

    What makes Milo so brilliant is that he does everything he can to put obstacles in front of himself to make his task harder. His rampant campness is unnecessarily over the top and the pearls just scream of a reference to "clutching" that reflects the superficial level of his artistry, the reaction he provokes from the left and the right at the same time but for different reasons.

    We always were going to have somebody at the top of Breitbart, but instead of a troglodyte with a David Duke-like combination of smugness and hatred, we have an artist who, like Banksy, has discovered a new type of canvas for his artwork (an act of genius in its own right) coupled with Goebbels-like creations spun in front of an audience whose understanding of his oeuvre is like sheep contemplating “Starry Night”.

    Bravo Milo.

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    There is one reason and one reason ONLY why NOT-45 lost the election..

    The one and only SINGLE reason why she lost??

    She was a shitty candidate. The American people trusted President Trump over NOT-45..

    It's THAT simple...

    Anything else is nothing but ideological felgercarb....

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's THAT simple...

    The "Who do you hate the least" theory of the 2016 election?

    You may be right. How does that bode for your chap in 2020?

  144. [144] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, by the way, the last Brit/Greek that played the American Right all the way up the garden path was a young lady called Arianna Stasinopoúlou who almost rode her stalking horse to the Senate in 1994.

    You may know her better now as Arianna Huffington.

    Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    The "Who do you hate the least" theory of the 2016 election?

    You may be right. How does that bode for your chap in 2020?

    Considering that the majority of Left doesn't feel they need to change a thing and the majority of the Left feels that NOT-45 was the PERFECT candidate...???

    I'm not worried. :D

  146. [146] 
    neilm wrote:

    Considering that the majority of Left doesn't feel they need to change a thing

    But you just insisted that it was Hillary's fault, and Hillary's fault alone for the loss in 2016.

    The one and only SINGLE reason why she lost??

    She was a shitty candidate.

    So we get a more popular candidate in 2020, and hey presto, the orange clown disappears like the crappy stage act he is.

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    But you just insisted that it was Hillary's fault, and Hillary's fault alone for the loss in 2016.

    Never said that it was ALL NOT-45's fault.. It was the fact that the Party choose a shitty candidate SOLELY because it was "her turn"...

    And that shitty candidate espouse the ideals of the Hysterical Left and ignored those Americans in the middle of the political spectrum...

    So we get a more popular candidate in 2020

    The Party couldn't do it in 2016..

    How is the Party going to grow a popular candidate in 4 years???

    Especially since the Party only looks at candidates who are ONLY popular in the Party and ignores the Basket of Deplorables...

    Like NOT-45....

    Until the Democrat Party embraces the delorables, they will continue to lose.. And since you and I both know that the Democrat WILL NOT embrace the deplorables..... They will continue to lose...

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar[133]

    Whoa, Daddy!

    That was quite a rant. But, you missed my very simple point and, worse yet, presumed many others.

    Just par for the course around here. :(

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    Nixon's list of crimes, we now know, did not stop with petty criminal acts. In 1968, he convinced the South Vietnamese to back out of a peace deal, promising them a better deal if he was elected. That was an act of treason.

    “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for {Putin} to give me space. This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
    -Barack Obama to Russian President Mendenev....

    I'm just sayin'......

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mendenev?

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    Medvedev

    During my stint in the military, Russian names were the bane of my existence. :D

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know what you mean.

    I still can't say his name right. :)

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You might say, "I didn't like the b**ch anyway" and you have every right to that opinion ...

    I would never say that nor would I harbour such an opinion.

    In future, try not to be so outrageously presumptuous.

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... but don't for one second doubt that a crime has been committed - an organized con job was run on the American people - and that should animate us far more than our petty preferences for one candidate over another.

    You may be lecturing to the wrong person. Recall that, for quite a while, I was the only one around here who appeared concerned about what the Putin regime was up to with respect to interfering in your presidential election.

    It was stunning to me that so little attention was being paid to what the Russians were doing. Even today, it doesn't seem to be taken seriously by Congress. Which I find absolutely incredible, especially given their penchant for congressional investigations into matters far less critical than Russian espionage with intent to manipulate an election through the public release of hacked material.

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    And yet, NO ONE was concerned about the Putin regime in 2012 when Putin was on the march....

    WHY is that??

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Everything is the same to you, Michale. That's another reason why having a civil discussion with you is so difficult.

    You can equate two unequal things and call it hypocrisy and partisanship but, you should know by now that I'm not persuaded by nonsense.

  157. [157] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (154)-
    The Russians manipulating our elections is the symptom of a bigger problem, the manipulation of our political system by domestic forces, specifically the Big Money interests that that manipulate the process to protect the status quo. The processes manipulated by domestic forces make the Russian manipulation possible.
    It's not that the Russian manipulation is not important, but just worrying about the symptoms without solving the underlying cause is not productive. In some cases worrying and reacting too much about the symptoms is used as a distraction to appeal to people emotions (JM 100) so they don't pay attention to the underlying cause.
    Politicians exploiting people's emotions can be effective- but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
    It should be condemned, not emulated.

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's not that the Russian manipulation is not important, but just worrying about the symptoms without solving the underlying cause is not productive.

    Do you believe I'm guilty of doing that?

    It's good to remember that not everything of relevance can be put into every comment. Some things must be taken for granted, especially among those of us who comment very regularly here.

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    Everything is the same to you, Michale. That's another reason why having a civil discussion with you is so difficult.

    No, not EVERYTHING is the same..

    But if Putin went from a nice guy, an ally and all around great chap to satan himself in 4 short years...

    There's got to be a reason...

    And, employing Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that Putin can be used to attack President Trump...

    You can equate two unequal things

    I would be more inclined to accept your claim that they are two unequal things, but I am going to need some FACTS to support my acceptance..

    In lieu in facts, I am going to have to go with logic...

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do what you have to do.

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    TS,

    I think Senator McCain may testing the waters about serious opposition. I sent this E-mail to offer a little encouragement:

    I have to ask.. Did you send McCain encouragement when he was singing "BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN" to the tune of Beach Boys' BARBARA ANN...????

    No???

    Didna think so......

  162. [162] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neilm,

    Well I thoroughly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos on Bill Maher.

    So did I, and I think you're spot-on in your assessment. Funny how Maher has the ability to uncover (expose?) the performance artist veneer of political provocateurs like Milo, Coulter, and Huffington. My opinions of all three changed after seeing them interact with Maher, because his interaction with them helps us to see it too.

    I once thought that Trump might be cast from the same mold - that his persona might be an elaborately crafted parody as well, but I doubt it, unless he's working at a level far, far beyond Kaufman.

  163. [163] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Elizabeth,

    You may be lecturing to the wrong person. Recall that, for quite a while, I was the only one around here who appeared concerned about what the Putin regime was up to with respect to interfering in your presidential election.

    And I thoroughly respect that. I apologize for lecturing, but I think that it can't be overstated that the world needs to wake up to Putin's manipulations. He may not have created Trump, LePen and the others, but like any good spymaster, certainly knows a good asset when he sees one.

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    True.

  165. [165] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey neil
    delayed response to comment 68 from "Trump should cut his losses"

    I didn't see any voiceover option so it was basically useless, the numbers look wrong* and/or out of date, and the Peterson Institute?

    If Peterson supports the GOP plan you sort of support, another big strike against it.
    Seriously.

    * the chart showing effective corporate tax rates said the US average was 27%... way higher than I've seen elsewhere. I'm thinking there is a categorization issues... maybe the 13% effective corporate tax rate I've seen elsewhere applies to just large corporations and the average he used includes LLC's or something?

    But, thanks for the link anyway.
    I appreciate the effort to help me understand.

    A

  166. [166] 
    michale wrote:

    And I thoroughly respect that. I apologize for lecturing, but I think that it can't be overstated that the world needs to wake up to Putin's manipulations.

    And, once again, I am forced to ask, since this is a REALITY based forum....

    WHY is it necessary that the "world needs to wake up to Putin's manipulations" when a guy with an '-R' after his name is in the White House, but it was OK to IGNORE "Putin's manipulations" when a guy with a '-D' after his name was in the White House??

    Logic dictates that paying attention to "Putin's manipulations" should be important REGARDLESS of which Party is in the White House..

    I know, I know.. I won't get an answer..

    And that is the answer in itself....

  167. [167] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz- (158)-
    No. I try to save most of my accusations for the politicians.
    I was pointing out that while I am concerned about Russian manipulation, it's how the politicians could exploit the issue to distract from their own manipulation that makes the Russian manipulation possible and how citizens in general can be caught up in the rhetoric and manipulated.
    Congress doesn't need to investigate because they already know and exploit the cause and would rather not shed light on themselves.

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I guess I'm just super hyper-sensitive, these days ... more than usual, even. :)

    My apologies to you and to Balthasar.

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    He may not have created Trump, LePen and the others, but like any good spymaster, certainly knows a good asset when he sees one.

    And yet, it was OBAMA and NOT-45 that oversaw the HUGE expansion of Putin territory and influence...

    So, yea.. Putin certainly recognized a HUGE asset in Obama and NOT-45

    Once again, a FACT that ya'all can't address....

  170. [170] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And yet, it was OBAMA and NOT-45 that oversaw the HUGE expansion of Putin territory and influence...

    Michale, that is the single most bizarre thing that I've seen you write since I started commenting here. I won't even try to counter it, since its absurdity stands on its own.

    Elizabeth,

    No apology necessary. Current events have given everyone a bit of a 'through the looking glass' sense of dislocation.

  171. [171] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    delayed response to comment 58 "Just the first to go"

    Thanks for the link.
    I think it's too short though.
    Nice to see the right wing crap debunked, but I particularly don't like how the numbers between "wants" and "needs" are left out... percentage of disposable income or something would have been nice to emphasize the reality, and he cites the Pew "losing ground" report and then uses the word "stagnating" to rebuff the National Review lie... two rather different meanings, and I think losing ground is more accurate in the context of the discussion.
    I'm picking nits, but the establishment two party duopoly is in full denial/change the subject mode trying to maintain the status quo, so it calls for a firmer response.

    A

  172. [172] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, yea.. Putin certainly recognized a HUGE asset in Obama and NOT-45

    That "huge asset" slammed major sanctions on Russia. You remember those sanctions, don't you? They are the ones that wrecked Tillerson's oil deal with Russia -- to the tune of THREE TRILLION DOLLARS -- and are the reason Tillerson was brought in to be Secretary of State. The poor guy lost his bonus for closing that deal when the sanctions slammed the brakes on it. Maybe this year Putin will give Trump the same medal that he gave Tillerson after he signed the oil deal!?

  173. [173] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Apology not needed.
    But you're going to need to develop a thicker skin before you emigrate.

  174. [174] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [172]: Hear, hear! True.

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don-
    I'm the least thin-skinned person around here. Believe me.

  176. [176] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Am I the only one who is getting a sense of extreme foreboding with respect to US foreign policy?

    There are very serious issues facing world leaders and they are having to deal with a decidedly non-serious US president.

    I am literally fearful of what might happen on any number of national security fronts and how a non-serious president of the United States is capable of making any bad situation much, much worse.

  177. [177] 
    michale wrote:

    Shocking rain damage is wakeup call to fix ailing roads, infrastructure, experts say
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20170218/shocking-rain-damage-is-wakeup-call-to-fix-ailing-roads-infrastructure-experts-say

    Tell me again how California is such a great state and is the state to emulate???

    Because from all the facts, California is falling apart because it spends all it's money on social welfare programs for illegal immigrants criminals and doesn't pay anything towards taking care of it's own citizens..

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    President Trump has plans for improving infrastructure, doesn't he. Has he released any detailed plans yet because he will have a willing partner in Governor Brown.

    Have you heard anything yet about Trumps infrastructure plans - that seems like a fairly easy and straightforward policy to put into action, especially for someone like Trump ... ??

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    Have you heard anything yet about Trumps infrastructure plans - that seems like a fairly easy and straightforward policy to put into action, especially for someone like Trump ... ??

    Considering how much the PARTY OF NO is harassing and attacking President Trump, I am not surprised that there hasn't been anything yet..

    President Trump has plans for improving infrastructure, doesn't he. Has he released any detailed plans yet because he will have a willing partner in Governor Brown.

    Yea?? The same Governor Brown who said that California won't pay it's taxes???

    The second largest resevoir dam in California was certified as UNSAFE over 12 years ago..

    What has California spent money on?? Illegal immigrants..

    Governor Brown doesn't sound like a willing OR a smart partner...

    Am I the only one who is getting a sense of extreme foreboding with respect to US foreign policy?

    Probably not.. Every other Anti-Trumper also feels that extreme foreboding...

    There are very serious issues facing world leaders and they are having to deal with a decidedly non-serious US president.

    That's an opinion unsupported by facts...

    I am literally fearful of what might happen on any number of national security fronts and how a non-serious president of the United States is capable of making any bad situation much, much worse.

    Couldn't make things much worse than the previous administration had....

    Many people had the same exact fear about President Reagan....

    This country is going to be awesome.. :D

  180. [180] 
    michale wrote:

    That "huge asset" slammed major sanctions on Russia.

    yea, and they have worked SO WELL, eh?? :D

    Again, Obama and NOT-45 were the best things to happen to Putin and Russia..

    They are the ones that wrecked Tillerson's oil deal with Russia -- to the tune of THREE TRILLION DOLLARS -- and are the reason Tillerson was brought in to be Secretary of State.

    See, now if I had made such a claim I would be viciously attacked and called a liar...

    But since I am not like that, I will simply ask you to provide facts to prove that Tillerson was brought in as SecState for the reasons you claim...

    This is the part where you ignore the request.. :D

    Maybe this year Putin will give Trump the same medal that he gave Tillerson after he signed the oil deal!?

    Which is nothing compared the "space" that Putin gave Obama at Obama's request...

    :D

    You can't win.. I have the facts and reality on my side..

    All ya'all have is hysterical fear-mongering and ideological blinders...

    "You can't win! I have god on my side!!"
    -Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  181. [181] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yup - California is a terrible place to live. Nobody should want to move here. Just stay away - we check to see if you are illegal before we let your kids into school or get any services.

    Play it safe, go to Texas, or Florida, or Alabama - Republican paradises. Just stay away from California. Yosemite isn't nearly as good as people say (and I should know I hike there for a long weekend every year). The skiing is terrible in Tahoe. The SoCal beaches are just terrible. Don't even come here on vacation!

    I hear the rural Alabama is a cultural paradise, there are great hikes in beautiful Houston and the mountains of Florida are unsurpassed outside of the Himalayas.

    JUST DON'T COME TO CALIFORNIA.

  182. [182] 
    michale wrote:

    Yup - California is a terrible place to live. Nobody should want to move here. Just stay away - we check to see if you are illegal before we let your kids into school or get any services.

    Wouldn't surprise me a bit.. :D

    JUST DON'T COME TO CALIFORNIA.

    Considering that California's ineptitude and adherence to social welfare for illegal immigrant criminals has put almost a million of it's citizens in harms way???

    That's good advice..

    I do miss my hometown, though... :(

  183. [183] 
    neilm wrote:

    Considering how much the PARTY OF NO is harassing and attacking President Trump, I am not surprised that there hasn't been anything yet..

    Good news, the Party of NO has the House, the Senate and the White House so they can do anything they want unless they need a filibuster proof vote - which they haven't had to deal with yet.

    So when are we going to see some action? Where is the new, much better Healthcare plan? Where are the heavy manufacturing and coal jobs for people who don't have a college degree? Where is the infrastructure plan.

    You'd almost thing they were all hat no cattle.

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/internet-regulating-fec-commissioner-resign/

    The Internet as a free entity has been saved!!! :D

  185. [185] 
    neilm wrote:

    Considering that California's ineptitude and adherence to social welfare for illegal immigrant criminals has put almost a million of it's citizens in harms way???

    Yup - stay somewhere safe - like ... Arkansas - wait no, their crime rate is 20% higher. Well there is the Republican Paradise of Texas ... no wait they are higher too. Well there is always Florida where you are nice and safe Michale ... except it is 35% more violent than California.

    Damn, well at least Illinois is safer.

    http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-dangerous-states-in-the-u-s.html

  186. [186] 
    neilm wrote:

    I do miss my hometown, though... :(

    Where is your home town - you never know, it might be safer than you think.

  187. [187] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Sheesh.
    I only have one little quibble this week-

    "Hoo boy. That may have topped all the inane things George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Ronald Reagan ever said combined."

    And my quibble is simply that you didn't go far enough.

    I think it's time to bust out the Dan Quayle comparisons.

    Kudos on the Most Disappointing bit.
    Clueless and/or corrupt establishment Dems will keep Dems in the wilderness (while, I'm sure just coincidentally) pleasing their Big Money overlords. I think a column on the possibility that Big Money is completely happy with Republicans in charge and that they haven't shed a single tear about Schumer and Pelosi prevailing in the leadership positions ... and about the dirty pool they are playing for the DNC job is in order.

    "No matter who wins the D.N.C. chair position next week, we sincerely hope they are a little more in tune with what is going on out there. Because the Democratic Party is never going to win until they start to listen to the anger brewing."

    OK.
    A second quibble.
    It's no secret that the Clintonites (aka Big Money establishment/status quo maintainers) are rallying behind Perez for the DNC job... consciously NOT listening to the crowds of protestors.

    If Perez beats Ellison, Dems will get some more lip service about the problem you correctly pointed out while policies will continue to serve the donors not the people.

    Perez can talk about it endlessly, but if you think he will support picking/helping good progressives or "primarying a few" of the corporate lackeys you are delusional.

    OK... more than a quibble on that last part.

    If Perez wins, a huge portion of the Bernie crowd is going to abandon the reform from within approach... and probably about half will take the force reform from without (as in no money for the DNC or state parties, only supporting good candidates directly) approach, and the more disillusioned half will put their efforts into a third party.

    And, don't for a second imagine that the Clinton/Obama Big Money people will care if that means continuing losses for the Democrats.

    So, "no matter who wins" is wrong.
    It matters.
    Hugely.

    A

  188. [188] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz said,

    I have no idea what you mean by that last bit. Unless you are saying that the Democrats had a great candidate and a wonderful message but lost the election as a result of factors beyond their control. If Democrats really believe that, then we're all doomed.

    I mean that given what information was available at the time, I cannot see how Clinton's campaign could be called a disaster by any means. If you look at the campaign on an organizational level, it was extremely well managed. All of the polls were indicating that the Clinton camp was doing exactly what it needed to do to win. People who do not like Hillary are never going to like Hillary. I get that. So many Bernie supporters keep claiming that he would have beaten Trump, but Bernie couldn't beat Hillary, so we will never really know. When she out scored her opponent by 3 million votes, it's hard to say that her message wasn't reaching people!

    The thing about 'Putin's fake news' is that, apparently, it wasn't fake. Unless I missed the part where anyone in the DNC or Podesta's office discredited the substance of the leaks. That's number one.

    Putin's "fake news" and Russia's hacking of the DNC and Podesta's office are two very different things. The fake news websites that were created by foreign parties that focused on attacking Clinton (like the one that posted the story of the child sex ring she had supposedly funded in the back of a pizza joint) has only one thing in common with the hacking stories - they were all funded by the Russians.

  189. [189] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    michale [184]
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/internet-regulating-fec-commissioner-resign/

    The Internet as a free entity has been saved!!! :D

    Do you even bother to read these things you post?

    This is about the FEC (elections), not the FCC!

    She wanted to prevent political campaigns from being able to knowingly post information that it believes/ knows is untrue! The Internet as a free entity was never in danger!

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I wanted Hillary to win.

    I believe Hillary ran an awful campaign. She had no positive message that rose above her negative campaign against Trump. She didn't go to the places she needed to go. That wasn't hard to say at all because it is the truth of the matter.

    Remember who she was running against - a non-serious know-nothing who just happened to be a bully and rude to boot.

    If Hillary was running anything remotely resembling a well-managed campaign, she would be POTUS today.

    Go back and check the comments about how she needed to change her strategy or lose - I mean as far back as the middle of 2016. There was quite a lot known at that time - enough to know she was in serious trouble, as I pointed on numerous occasions.

  191. [191] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I am not saying that there weren't areas that she could not have improved on -- not at all! I'm saying that referring to her campaign as a total train wreck (as if it had no redeeming qualities at all) is being dishonest. If her campaign was so horrific, then that would suggest that she scored three million more votes than Trump based solely on her likability...which would make even Hillary burst into laughter if she heard that!

    I changed up LBJ's famous quote to fit our world, today, and I think it works.

    "If you can convince the lowest American that he's better than the best foreign man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

  192. [192] 
    neilm wrote:

    As oil prices dropped, the fields that were break even at $60/Barrel were suddenly unprofitable.

    There were massive layoffs - 163,000, with almost 100,000 in Texas alone.

    So the oil industry adopted technology from the automotive and aviation industry and got the breakeven down to $35/Barrel. And now production is rebounding, but not jobs.

    This is why having simple people spouting simple solutions to complex problems seldom work.

    Do you think all of 45's friends in the oil business are going to sideline their robots and new technology so they can hire blue collar workers and raise costs back up to $60/Barrel as prices rise?

    We need 21st Century solutions for automation, not 1950's thinking.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/energy-environment/oil-jobs-technology.html

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think we should all pause, and take a moment to remember the fictitious victims of Atlanta, Sweden and Bowling Green.

    We can laugh at the moment, but if a real attack takes place on our soil (may it never happen) 45 and his minions are going to go bananas.

    The Right Wingery already believe that unless you think like them you aren't a real, patriotic American. The highly emotional right wing nuts are going to go into a self righteous frenzy.

    We will be told to shut up, that we are under attack, and we should blindly support 45 and everything he says and does.

    45 will go completely overboard - I'm sure he will try to stifle the press and impose draconian controls over the minorities he points the finger at. All to puff up his own importance. His fanboys will love it.

    We need to ensure that we point this out before it happens - it will be too late afterwards.

  194. [194] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    I'm a bit out of sorts today, evidenced by my last few comments.

    I'm taking a break from all of this for a while.

  195. [195] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Alternative Facts

    Roses might be red
    Violets might be blue
    Corporations are people
    Soylent Green is too

    JL

  196. [196] 
    michale wrote:

    Good news, the Party of NO has the House, the Senate and the White House

    See, this is the problem..

    You are not up on current events.. The Democrat Party has become the PARTY OF NO...

    This is well documented.. I would provide you with the documentation, but I know it will be ignored..

    I understand that your ideological blinders won't allow you to see the facts, but they are the facts nonetheless..

    So when are we going to see some action? Where is the new, much better Healthcare plan?

    These things take time.. Look how long it took Democrats to create TrainWreckCare... It's not going to be dismantled in a day..

    I would think that you would WANT your government and your president to take their time to do it right.

    You DO want your President to succeed, right??

    :D

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    She wanted to prevent political campaigns from being able to knowingly post information that it believes/ knows is untrue! The Internet as a free entity was never in danger!

    She wanted to regulate conservative sites on the Internet..

    Of COURSE the Internet was in danger...

    I know you can't see that due to your ideological blinders...

  198. [198] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean that given what information was available at the time, I cannot see how Clinton's campaign could be called a disaster by any means.

    Except for the fact that NOT-45 *LOST* to a candidate that has NEVER had a political post and has NEVER run a political campaign...

    Yea, other than THAT, NOT-45 was a HUGE success!! :D

    All of the polls were indicating that the Clinton camp was doing exactly what it needed to do to win.

    No, not ALL of the polls....

    Just the polls that the Left WANTED to listen to....

    There were MANY MANY polls that showed Hillary was in trouble and Trump was going to win..

    But the entirety of the Left, including EVERYONE here, ignored those polls due to ideological blinders..

    It's just like the entirety of the Left, including everyone here, ignores the science that disputes the Global Warming theory..

    It must be ingrained into the genetics of the Left...

    When she out scored her opponent by 3 million votes, it's hard to say that her message wasn't reaching people!

    But the FACT you can't acknowledge (it's a habit) is that those 3 million people were ALL in a single state.. The most liberal state in the country...

    So, the fact that NOT-45 won the vanity vote is completely and utterly irrelevant...

    - they were all funded by the Russians.

    Prove it... You can't because it's TOTAL bullshit..

    Give me ONE SINGLE FACT that proves Russians funded the fake news..

    Just one...

  199. [199] 
    michale wrote:

    Where is your home town - you never know, it might be safer than you think.

    San Diego.. Actually, La Mesa, a suburb of San Diego..

    Yup - stay somewhere safe - like ... Arkansas - wait no, their crime rate is 20% higher. Well there is the Republican Paradise of Texas ... no wait they are higher too. Well there is always Florida where you are nice and safe Michale ... except it is 35% more violent than California.

    At least none of those states have to worry about their citizens being drowned in a massive flood due to the ineptitude and hysterical liberalism of the state government...

    You watch. California is going to come groveling, hat in hand, and beg President Trump for disaster funds...

    California wants to secede?? Let them succeed on their own without any help from that "Hitler" in the White House, eh??

  200. [200] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I believe Hillary ran an awful campaign. She had no positive message that rose above her negative campaign against Trump. She didn't go to the places she needed to go. That wasn't hard to say at all because it is the truth of the matter.

    AND SHE HITS IT OUT OF THE BALL PARK!!!!!

    Dead on ballz accurate...

    :D

    Listen,

    I'm saying that referring to her campaign as a total train wreck (as if it had no redeeming qualities at all) is being dishonest.

    No, it's being factually accurate...

    NOT-45 **LOST** to Donald Trump!!

    How can her campaign be described as anything BUT a trianwreck???

    Give me ONE SINGLE positive aspect of NOT-45's campaign...

    Just ONE....

    And if you say she won the vanity vote, I will taunt you a second time.... :D

  201. [201] 
    michale wrote:

    If her campaign was so horrific, then that would suggest that she scored three million more votes than Trump based solely on her likability...which would make even Hillary burst into laughter if she heard that!

    The fact that she won those votes from a SINGLE state.. and the most liberal state in the country PROVES how bad her campaign really was..

    To win, NOT-45 had to appeal to a broad section of the entire country, NOT just the liberals in a single state...

    But NOT-45 thought it would be fun to INSULT a broad section of the entire country..

    "You thought it would be fun to insult me, well now it is my turn, wise-ass"
    -Walter Peck, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    We can laugh at the moment, but if a real attack takes place on our soil (may it never happen) 45 and his minions are going to go bananas.

    And if it DOES happen, it's going to be DIRECTLY the fault of ALL of the Left who opposed President Trump's EO....

    It will insure that the entirety of patriotic Americans will turn against ALL who opposed President Trump..

    It's not going to be pretty and the anti-Trumpers can't say they weren't warned...

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    And lookie what we have here..

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    President Trump's approval rating has ticked up another point of a point.. :D

    He's doing such a HORRIBLE job yet his approval rating continues to climb... :D

    Kinda kills ya'all's theory that the people are turning against the President, eh?? :D

  204. [204] 
    michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2017/02/19/the-media-doesnt-call-the-shots-trump-does/

    The anti-Trumpers need to come to terms with one single fact..

    President Trump is in charge.. Not the media and not the Demcorat Party...

    Get behind the President or get steam-rolled..

    It's THAT simple...

  205. [205] 
    michale wrote:

    The End Of Identity Politics
    http://www.hoover.org/research/end-identity-politics

    This is why Democrats will continue to lose election..

    They are counting on divisive and hateful rhetoric and Americans are tired of the divisions and tired of the hate...

    It's entirely likely that Democrats will never acheive the Majority or the White House in my lifetime...

    Something to look forward to... :D

  206. [206] 
    michale wrote:

    For years, these losers have been proclaiming that their opponents are on the “wrong side of history” in politics, which is like being on the wrong side of the road on a road trip. But now they’ve learned that both in history and on road trips, it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the part in front of you. And that makes them so mad.

    That, and losing.

    They demand a recount. They ask the Electoral College to go rogue. They blame it all on the Russians — after giving them a pass on their Crimean conquest and Syrian slaughter.

    Some refuse to attend the inauguration. Some call on the newly elected president to resign and, if he doesn’t, imply that he should be impeached or worse.

    Their ideas are like Thelma’s 1966 Thunderbird convertible: fun and eye-catching, but unsafe at any speed.

    And they can’t find anyone to drive. They can’t find someone to chair the Democratic National Committee after the past two were caught cheating. The recent possibilities include a Louis Farrakhan follower whom even fellow Dems have labelled anti-Semitic, a Socialist from the last administration (and the last century) and the head of the biggest abortion operation in the country.

    While Middle America celebrates their soaring 401(k) plans, the Dems boycott hearings to confirm the new president’s cabinet. They protest in the streets. They name-call everyone who disagrees with them.

    They hang and burn the new president in effigy, call his immigrant wife a prostitute and mock their young son as autistic.

    And they make good on their threats to leave the country. Oops, I got that part wrong. But one Dem state does fantasize about resurrecting the Confederacy by seceding from the Union.

    They threaten to filibuster the new president’s nominee for the Supreme Court, thereby egging the Republicans into abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees (as the Dems themselves abolished it for district court and appellate court nominees) so that they forfeit the leverage they would have down the road in the next nomination.
    http://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/beaton-thelma-and-louise-and-the-democrats/

    One can't imagine how much worse it could get for the Democrat Party.. :D

  207. [207] 
    michale wrote:

    “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.”
    -John F. Kennedy

    That's the problem with most everyone here and ALL of the Anti-Trumpers...

    They want the DEMOCRAT answer and won't even CONSIDER a Republican answer...

  208. [208] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/02/20/red-state_dems_thread_the_needle_in_working_with_trump_133134.html

    Who would have thunked it!???

    A reasonable Democrat in Congress!!

    "Fascinating"
    -Spock

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    “They’re stonewalling everything that he’s doing because they’re just being babies about it,” said Patricia Melani, 56, a Jersey native who now lives here and attended her third Trump rally Saturday. “All the loudmouths? They need to let it go. Let it go. Shut their mouths and let the man do what he’s got to do. We all shut our mouths when Obama got in the second time around, okay? So that’s what really needs to be done.”

    She blames the media for circulating “fake” stories about the president — like when she believed he was “very cool, wasn’t yelling” at a Thursday news conference, yet a CNN anchor described his behavior as “unhinged.”

    “There’s such hatred for the man,” she said. “I just don’t get it.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-supporters-see-a-successful-president--and-are-frustrated-with-critics-who-dont/2017/02/19/496cb4b4-f6ca-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?

    Yep, yep, yep...

    The entirety of the hysterical anti-Trumpers can yell and scream and whine and cry til they are all blue in the face...

    HATE will not win the day.... The anti-Trumpers might as well give up on that point..

  210. [210] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    She wanted to regulate conservative sites on the Internet..

    Of COURSE the Internet was in danger...

    NO, she wanted to prevent campaigns from knowingly posting lies on their websites... The fact that they all happened to be Republican sites is on them!

  211. [211] 
    michale wrote:

    Americans brimming with optimism on the economy

    A strong majority of Americans say the U.S. economy is running strong, and most believe the upward trend will continue under President Trump, according to a Harvard-Harris poll provided exclusively to The Hill.

    The survey found that 61 percent view the economy as strong, against 39 percent who say it is weak.
    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/320284-americans-brimming-with-optimism-on-the-economy

    Ouch....

    That's just GOTTA hurt, eh!?? :D

    All the fear-mongering about the market tanking and shriveling up if President Trump was elected???

    Whaaa happened?? :D

    Were the facts confused with wishful thinking???

    Apparently.... :D

  212. [212] 
    michale wrote:

    NO, she wanted to prevent campaigns from knowingly posting lies on their websites... The fact that they all happened to be Republican sites is on them!

    No, the fact that this witch targeted ONLY Republican sites and left Left Wing propaganda websites like HuffPoop and Daily KOS alone is on her..

    So, what you are claiming is that it's ONLY Republican oriented sites that are full of lies..

    The Left Winger sites are the virtue of truth....

    That indicates the problem right there...

    :D

  213. [213] 
    michale wrote:

    No, the fact that this witch targeted ONLY Republican sites and left Left Wing propaganda websites like HuffPoop and Daily KOS alone is on her..

    That 'w' SHOULD have been a 'b', but calling out Left Wingers with that tends to upset the snowflakes.. :D

  214. [214] 
    michale wrote:

    So when are we going to see some action? Where is the new, much better Healthcare plan?

    Howz that GITMO closing coming along???

    Obama campaigned on closing GITMO...

    Guess what?? It's STILL open..

    Oh sure.. Obama released some terrorists back into the wild so they can kill more innocent people..

    But GITMO is STILL open, even though Obama campaigned on closing it..

    So, unless you want to resoundingly and ongoing-ly condemn Obama and the Democrats for keeping GITMO open.....

    You have absolutely NO moral leg to stand on for condemning President Trump and the Republicans for not repealing TrainWreckCare....

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed"
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  215. [215] 
    neilm wrote:

    We can laugh at the moment, but if a real attack takes place on our soil (may it never happen) 45 and his minions are going to go bananas.

    And if it DOES happen, it's going to be DIRECTLY the fault of ALL of the Left who opposed President Trump's EO....

    You are sort of making my point Michale.

    What is some terrorists come in legally from Saudi Arabia? Whose fault is that? The terrorists or Americans whose way of thinking you dislike?

  216. [216] 
    michale wrote:

    I think we should all pause, and take a moment to remember the fictitious victims of Atlanta, Sweden and Bowling Green.

    Fictitious victims in Sweden???

    WATCH: Rape and Violence Are on the Rise in Sweden
    http://tinyurl.com/z5atylj

    Yea, I am sure the victims of rape and violence in Sweden appreciate the anti-Trumpers ridiculing their plight..

    Nice.. Bout par for the course these days.. :^/

  217. [217] 
    michale wrote:

    What is some terrorists come in legally from Saudi Arabia? Whose fault is that? The terrorists or Americans whose way of thinking you dislike?

    Whose fault is it letting the terrorists in?? The administration's for not doing enough..

    So, you are saying you SUPPORT President Trump's order to restrict travel and immigration..

    You just complain it doesn't go FAR enough??

    OK, I can agree with you on that one..

  218. [218] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (207)-
    Can you blame them?
    The last time Democrats considered a Republican idea we got Obamacare.
    And it seems to me that Kennedy was saying we should not consider either side, we should just consider what is right.
    I was going to point out that is what I have been saying, but then I remembered what happened to Kennedy.

  219. [219] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, unless you want to resoundingly and ongoing-ly condemn Obama and the Democrats for keeping GITMO open.....

    You have absolutely NO moral leg to stand on for condemning President Trump and the Republicans for not repealing [the ACA]

    interesting parallel, though it reads more like a deflection. yes, obama probably should have closed gitmo by now, and it's ridiculous to condemn trump for not keeping that campaign promise so soon - beside which, thousands of people a year would die as a direct result of a repeal.

    both difficult campaign promises for any president to keep, both fraught with danger.

    kaffee: grave danger?
    jessep: is there another kind?

  220. [220] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    correction, tens of thousands.

    https://tinyurl.com/z76hmkt

  221. [221] 
    michale wrote:

    Can you blame them?
    The last time Democrats considered a Republican idea we got Obamacare.

    If it had been done in a bi-partisan manner, TrainWreckCare wouldn't have been TrainWreckCare...

    It's that simple...

    And it seems to me that Kennedy was saying we should not consider either side, we should just consider what is right.

    But the problem arise when one side makes the totally bogus claim that the other side can NEVER be right..

    I was going to point out that is what I have been saying, but then I remembered what happened to Kennedy.

    Yea...

  222. [222] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    interesting parallel, though it reads more like a deflection. yes, obama probably should have closed gitmo by now, and it's ridiculous to condemn trump for not keeping that campaign promise so soon -

    Exactly..

    But my point was not the ridiculousness of blasting President Trump for not doing something that SHOULD take a while, right aways..

    That ridiculousness stands on it's own..

    No, my point was pointing out the credibility of someone who complains about ONE president who hasn't kept a campaign promise after 30 days but yet gives a pass to ANOTHER president who hasn't kept a campaign promise in 8 years...

    beside which, thousands of people a year would die as a direct result of a repeal.

    Tens of thousands of people *MAY* die... And that is based on the VERY gross assumption that NOTHING will be put in it's place..

    The fact that the Trump Administration *HASN'T* repealed TrainWreckCare right aways, PROVES that the administration intends to handle the repeal in a responsible manner..

    both difficult campaign promises for any president to keep, both fraught with danger.

    Yes, but the people here (Notable Exceptions Noted) *ONLY* give grief to ONE of those Presidents and gives the OTHER president a pass..

    And if one doesn't hold BOTH presidents accountable equally, then the credibility of ALL the claims against the one President suffers..

    That's all I am saying...

    Isn't that logical and rational??

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    No, my point was pointing out the credibility of someone who complains about ONE president who hasn't kept a campaign promise after 30 days but yet gives a pass to ANOTHER president who hasn't kept a campaign promise in 8 years...

    And for those who would claim FALSE EQUIVALENCES, the fact that BOTH presidents ran on a platform of that promise (Trump w/ repealing TrainWreckCare and Obama w/ closing GITMO) shows that these two issues are EXTREMELY equivalent...

    Again, is this not logical and rational??

  224. [224] 
    michale wrote:

    Woops... President Trump's JA rating has slipped .4 points... Not good :(

  225. [225] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And if one doesn't hold BOTH presidents accountable equally, then the credibility of ALL the claims against the one President suffers..
    [snip]Isn't that logical and rational??

    no, it's flawed at every point. not all promises are equal, not all presidential attempts to keep them are equal, not all people have equal starting credibility - or loss thereof - based on their biases.

    also, the fact that the ACA has not been repealed in one month does not in any way prove that it is being handled responsibly - though it does refute the assertion that it's being handled irresponsibly, since as yet nothing's been done.

    JL

  226. [226] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i.e. each of the two situations is unique, so you can't reasonably apply logic in comparing them.

    JL

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you like to rephrase that, Joshua? :)

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you think Paul Ryan's plan for healthcare is a good one?

  229. [229] 
    michale wrote:

    i.e. each of the two situations is unique, so you can't reasonably apply logic in comparing them.

    Of course, there are differences.. But those differences are irrelevant to my point..

    But when you break them down to campaign promises that were featured VERY prominently in the given campaign, they are identical..

    And that breakdown is the totality of my point..

  230. [230] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you think Paul Ryan's plan for healthcare is a good one?

    I don't know.. Haven't read it.. Probably wouldn't understand it if I did.. :D

  231. [231] 
    michale wrote:

    no, it's flawed at every point. not all promises are equal,

    These two promises were equal in the context of my point..

    not all presidential attempts to keep them are equal,

    This is true because President Trump has only had 30 days to keep his promise.

    Obama had EIGHT YEARS... So the DIFFERENCE goes against Obama more than President Trump..

    not all people have equal starting credibility - or loss thereof - based on their biases.

    Not sure what you are trying to say here...

  232. [232] 
    michale wrote:

    Topic A -- Obama's Appointee Problems
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303323.html

    Ya see??

    All the complaining about President Trump and his appointment issues??

    Obama had similar problems and no one said boo about them then..

    Because.... why????...... Obama had a '-D' after his name.. :D

  233. [233] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think we were all in a bit of a stupor at the outset of obama's presidency - hope can do that. by the time some of us woke to the reality that president obama was a more typical politician than we believed, some of those details were lost to memory in the scuffle over obamacare. i don't think appeals to hypocrisy can apply, because the situation right now is so different. obama's approval was around seventy percent back then, so it obviously wasn't just the left who were a bit star-struck. trump's starting approval is much lower, so people are obviously going to be a lot more critical overall.

  234. [234] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know.. Haven't read it.. Probably wouldn't understand it if I did.. :D

    Until you do read it and understand it you HAVE NO RIGHT to discuss repeal and replacement of the ACA. Period.

    Well, of course, you can do whatever you want but, there is no reason for the rest of us to take any of your comments regarding repeal and replacement of Obamacare the least bit seriously.

  235. [235] 
    michale wrote:

    i don't think appeals to hypocrisy can apply, because the situation right now is so different.

    But think of the situation NOW compared to the situation in 2008 and their are eerie similarities...

  236. [236] 
    michale wrote:

    Until you do read it and understand it you HAVE NO RIGHT to discuss repeal and replacement of the ACA. Period

    I am not discussing replacement of TrainWreckCare..

    But I have every right to discuss the REPEAL of TrainWreckCare because ALL of the facts to date indicate that TrainWreckCare is in a death spiral and is a train wreck...

    My knowledge (or lack thereof) of any possible replacement is not relevant to discussing how crappy TrainWreckCare is..

    Well, of course, you can do whatever you want but, there is no reason for the rest of us to take any of your comments regarding repeal and replacement of Obamacare the least bit seriously.

    Why should THAT subject be any different than any other subject?? :D heh

  237. [237] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But think of the situation NOW compared to the situation in 2008 and their [sic] are eerie similarities...

    i don't think i agree with that, but if what you're saying were true, wouldn't the outcome be the same or similar as well?

    JL

  238. [238] 
    michale wrote:

    That was a joke... :D

  239. [239] 
    michale wrote:

    i don't think i agree with that,

    The same transformational atmosphere, the same hope for change....

    but if what you're saying were true, wouldn't the outcome be the same or similar as well?

    It very well could be....

    We'll just have to wait to find out...

  240. [240] 
    michale wrote:

    but if what you're saying were true, wouldn't the outcome be the same or similar as well?

    It very well could be....

    We'll just have to wait to find out...

    The problems here is that, with a few notable exceptions, no one wants to wait to find out. They are declaring the administration a disaster already....

  241. [241] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How can you know so much about TrainWreckCare and how bad it is but you know nothing about what should replace it?

    Or, do you not care about your fellow citizens who will be without healthcare if the ACE is repealed and not replaced with a suitable alternative?

    And, I asked you before but you didn't have a chance to answer yet ... do you believe that healthcare is a right that all Americans have?

  242. [242] 
    michale wrote:

    How can you know so much about TrainWreckCare and how bad it is but you know nothing about what should replace it?

    Given all the facts about TrainWreckCare that are available.... How can I not??

    Or, do you not care about your fellow citizens who will be without healthcare if the ACE is repealed and not replaced with a suitable alternative?

    And *IF* that happens, then I will address that..

    But from all the facts available, it's NOT going to happen..

    If it were going to happen, it already WOULD happen...

    And, I asked you before but you didn't have a chance to answer yet ... do you believe that healthcare is a right that all Americans have?

    I do not..

  243. [243] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (221)-
    Obamacare was done in a bi-partisan (read: Buy-partisan) manner.
    The Democrats spent the entire time "fighting" for a public option while the Republicans were "fighting" against it.
    This allowed both sides to play good cop for their side and bad cop for the other side, firing up their bases so they could be milked for contributions.
    When that had played out they "compromised" by removing the public option making Obamacare a way to provide subsidies to the insurance industry which is what both sides planned all along.

    Come to think of it, the good cop- bad cop analogy is much better than framing it as a lesser of two evil argument. Lesser of two evils is divisive while the good cop- bad cop analogy correctly identifies both sides as working together against the rest of us while only pretending to be on one side or the other.

    I was disappointed in your reply to what happened to Kennedy. I really thought I fed you a softball.
    I was expecting something like:
    Don,
    Sounds like you need to "GET YOUR BALLS BACK"
    "What's the matter, runt? You Yellah?"
    -My best guess at remembering what Buford "Mad Dog" Tanner (Tannen?) said in Back to the Future 3

  244. [244] 
    michale wrote:

    Obamacare was done in a bi-partisan (read: Buy-partisan) manner.

    Bull puckies..

    The Democrats spent the entire time "fighting" for a public option while the Republicans were "fighting" against it.

    Bull Puckies Part II... Obama discarded the Public Option early on...

    I was disappointed in your reply to what happened to Kennedy. I really thought I fed you a softball.
    I was expecting something like:
    Don,
    Sounds like you need to "GET YOUR BALLS BACK"
    "What's the matter, runt? You Yellah?"
    -My best guess at remembering what Buford "Mad Dog" Tanner (Tannen?) said in Back to the Future 3

    I wouldn't expect, nor ask, you to put your life on the line for my principles...

  245. [245] 
    michale wrote:

    (read: Buy-partisan)

    Missed that, the first time.. :D

    Yea, the insurance companies and the drug companies really bought off Democrats....

    You are dead on ballz accurate in that..

  246. [246] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Just read something that is absolutely, positively, unequivocally EXCITING!!!

    Now, every once in a while we agree on things and sometimes I'm even ... what's your phrase ... "dead on ballz accurate!" ...

    So, I'm hoping you will find this commentary by Zbigniew ("Zbiggy" for short and with great affection) Brzezinski and Paul Wasserman (not sure who he is) as fascinating as I do.

    Essentially, it says that the world needs a Trump doctrine and that Trump should give an address outlining such.

    I agree wholeheartedly with everything these two men wrote and I can't wait to hear what you think about it!
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/why-the-world-needs-a-trump-doctrine.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

  247. [247] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, since we are near the end of this thread, here is a great link for everyone else about how best to resist Trump and his policies:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-right-way-to-resist-trump.html?emc=edit_ty_20170220&nl=opinion-today&nlid=22515649&te=1&_r=0

  248. [248] 
    neilm wrote:

    Essentially, it says that the world needs a Trump doctrine and that Trump should give an address outlining such.

    The two authors call for a nuanced platform that creates a shared "win-win-win" vision for he U.S., China and Russia.

    I have a few problems with this.

    1. It misses the world's largest economic power, the E.C. Currently the E.C. has been militarily inert because it is in everybody's best interests, including the E.C. that Germany, France, etc. don't start ramping up a large military. They certainly have the money and ability to do so - can you imaging the German military prowess if they got going again - they have the most sophisticated manufacturing plants in the world. 45 has to stop all the anti-NATO nonsense, otherwise it will become a 4 way balancing act.

    2. 45 isn't a "win-win" person - he is a "win-lose" person whose pronouncements (e.g. on trade wars and NATO) are really "lose-lose" but he is too dumb to understand this

    3. Russia and China are quite happy to look the other way already on humanitarian issues and territorial activities outside of their sphere. They don't need our approval, and with a very weakened White House they are more interested in seeing how far they can get on their own before settling down to some new boundaries.

    The authors are right in their vision, but the people and the situation are not conducive.

  249. [249] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The authors are right in their vision, but the people and the situation are not conducive.

    I think the authors are all too aware of that, Neil. They are trying and hoping against hope that they and others of like mind might be able to persuade the Trump administration to follow the path they set out, for the good of the United States and the rest of the world.

    Do I think the Trump crew is even capable of analyzing the kind of advice that is being offered up here? Frankly, and sadly, no. But, I am not without at least a shred of hope.

    We need to hear more like this commentary from others in a position to give advice to the new administration, persistently on a continuing basis. That, really, is our only hope.

    [

  250. [250] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Right Way to Resist Trump

    Wise words, but there are two schools of thought about this:

    1. Hillary was a bad candidate and just about anybody else would have beaten 45

    2. 45 won because he inspired a movement so personal attacks are missing the point.

    The author goes with #2.

    I think #1 might be more on target, and a visionary motivational leader from the center left could create a landslide in 2020.

  251. [251] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary was certainly a bad candidate. But, any other candidate could only have beaten Trump if they followed a better strategy of countering Trump with an honest and positive message that did not pit one group of Americans against another and didn't leave anyone or any state out.

    I think the author goes with #1 and #2.

    Even I would have to re-think advocating for another Biden presidency. I'm afraid his time may have passed.

    The really big problem for Democrats is that they don't currently have a leader that is not of the Biden/Clinton generation. Hopefully someone of great substance and character emerges and soon!

  252. [252] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One thing is for sure: the Clintons are FINISHED in presidential politics. Full stop!

    I just wanted to make that crystal clear, in case I haven't already. :)

  253. [253] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [251]

    Please replace another Biden presidency with another Biden presidential run.

    Perhaps, I was just getting ahead of myself? Heh.

    Or, it was just my imagination, running away with me ... :)

  254. [254] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    ... a visionary motivational leader from the center left could create a landslide in 2020.

    Indeed. You're talking about an up-wing leader and I couldn't agree more.

  255. [255] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    ... a visionary motivational leader from the center left could create a landslide in 2020.

    Indeed. You're talking about an up-wing leader and I couldn't agree more.

    (didn't mean to emphasize all of that)

  256. [256] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    third time is the charm ...

    Neil,

    ... a visionary motivational leader from the center left could create a landslide in 2020.

    Indeed. You're talking about an up-wing leader and I couldn't agree more.

  257. [257] 
    neilm wrote:

    I am talking about an up-wing leader.

    I think that the Republican Party has exhausted white identity politics and pulled every lever possible to hoard the power of its shrinking base. There is going to be a massive breakthrough of progressives who are going to discover the struggle and energy that they have let slip over the last two decades.

    I'm convinced there is a 35-45 year old out there with the rhetorical skills, the big ideas and the charisma to thrive in the fertile soil that is the next generation of America.

    We have to shuffle off the baby-boomers (my generation incidentally) and pass power to the next.

  258. [258] 
    neilm wrote:

    The wheels finally come off the bus for Kansas' "Republican Wet Dream" Economic Policies:

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/17/kansas-lawmakers-pass-big-income-tax-increase-as-budget-fix/

    Big tax increases to balance the budget, because, as has been proven time and time and time again, giving your boss a big pay raise doesn't mean you are suddenly going to get wealthy too.

  259. [259] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said:

    No, the fact that this witch targeted ONLY Republican sites and left Left Wing propaganda websites like HuffPoop and Daily KOS alone is on her..

    She was with the Federal ELECTIONS Commission, not the FCC! She pushed for more transparency -- requiring campaigns to post only statements they know to be true and requiring PACS to disclose where and how these nonprofits spend their money -- she had nothing to do with going after any propaganda sites for either side!

    Seriously, you might want to rethink where you get your "news" links that you claim prove your points... Or maybe take the time to actually read the article and not just the headline.

    It's bad enough we have a president that makes shit like this up... If you have to emulate Trump, just spray paint your skin orange.

  260. [260] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm wrote:

    "I have a few problems with this."

    1.) The E.C. may be the world's largest economic power, but it is ignored precisely because it lacks a unified political and military voice, and still acts like 28 individual nations whenever any kid of crisis hits, something it has demonstrated over and over again since the 1990's. Nor is this ever likely to change anytime soon for a number of reasons. Until it does, it can't be considered as a equal partner on the same level as Russia, China and the USA. And despite the USA's support since WWII for a more United and therefore peaceful Europe, it is in fact not in the national interests of either the USA, Russia, or Britain, for Europe to be united. They have all, in fact, fought numerous wars over the years to prevent any single nation from dominating and uniting Europe.

    2.) Here I would have to agree with you. Right wing Republicans and their most reliable voters seem to look at politics as a zero sum game, even in cases where it is most obviously not the case. Take civil rights for example. Just because someone else finally achieves equality, in no way takes away from or diminishes any of the rights that you have. The pie doesn't shrink and you get a smaller piece of pie than you had before. The whole pie simply gets bigger.

    3.) While neither China or Russia need American approval to handle their own internal affairs. both of them do both still acknowledge that nothing of substance can be achieved internationally without American without active American participation or at least an absence of active American obstruction. Otherwise, diplomats the world over would still not ask, "What does America think or what is America going to do about this situation?" Diplomats still run to Washington to seek guidance in a crisis, not to Berlin or Moscow or Beijing, and that includes both friend and foe.

  261. [261] 
    John M wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "They spiral into a fit of self-loathing, attack members of the party that don't share the exact same views as they hold as not being a "TRUE" progressive or Democrat."

    Actually the same could be said to be even more true of today's Republican party. The whole idea of RINOS and the effort to purge the party of them, along with the whole Tea Party wing viewing any kind of compromise as treason is proof of this. That's why even with a majority controlling all three branches of government, they are still incapable of avoiding infighting, herding their cats together, and getting anything more than symbolically done. Maybe, perhaps, the electorate at large will finally come to realize this now.

  262. [262] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm wrote:

    "I think we can make a claim for Reagan as well."

    True enough. I was only talking about progressive candidates. But a case can certainly be made for it coming from the right as well. I.E. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Also, people tend to forget Nixon's very effective "Checkers" speech, etc.

  263. [263] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "They believe that Fake News, Russians and the FBI lost the election..

    That NOT-45 was the perfect candidate and would have been a perfect POTUS...

    The Left can't even COMPREHEND that it's their message that is not resonating with patriotic Americans.."

    Neither I, or Elizabeth, or many others I am sure, believe that Hillary was the perfect candidate. Far from it in fact. Elizabeth would have rather Biden run, and I was a Bernie supporter. But we all do believe that Hillary would be doing a far better job now than Trump.

    Fake news, Russians, and the FBI did not lose the election. But they are very much cause for concern now regarding their outsize influence in the Trump administration. Something that should be cause for concern for all patriotic Americans regardless of their political affiliations.

    If the left's message did not resonate, then Clinton would not have gotten 3 million more votes than Trump, Americans would not be marching in the streets since Trump's election, and Republicans would not be having such a problem with their town hall meetings.

  264. [264] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Very VERY rarely does ANYONE here *EVER* try to reach me on a logical or rational level.."

    NOT TRUE. We try all the time. Like with global warming. Or with Trump NOT winning an electoral college landslide. But you are so emotionally invested in Trump you respond with illogical nonsense about "context" and still insist on your original assertion. Nothing is ever going to change your mind until something actually shatters your emotional investment in Trump on an emotional level, not on a logical factual level. That's just the way it is. Only you can't or refuse to see it.

    Michale again:

    "Give you a perfect example..

    You and I had a discussion before regarding President Trump's intention to ignore the court order regarding his Travel Restrictions EO.. You had stated that Obama never ignored court orders.. I proved you wrong, that Obama DID ignore court orders, just like President Trump did..

    You reacted emotionally and ignored the discussion from that point on.. The LOGICAL and RATIONAL response would be to concede the point..."

    ACTUALLY NOT. Since you never listed any examples to my knowledge or cited any links to prove your point. If I recall correctly, you only said that Obama did, said it wasn't worth showing me any of your proof simply because I would not or refuse to believe you, and then you and I both left it at that.

  265. [265] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Many people had the same exact fear about President Reagan...."

    AND they were CORRECT. Even though I voted for Reagan twice myself, except for foreign policy, he was a disaster on domestic issues. He was responsible for both the largest tax increases and the largest deficit increases, up until that time, in history, as well as making the AIDS crisis both worse and longer than it should have been.

  266. [266] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You are not up on current events.. The Democrat Party has become the PARTY OF NO..."

    You are the one with the ideological blinders on.

    When the Republicans were the party of NO, they were effective at it because they controlled at least one of the Houses of Congress.

    The Democrats have no such power. They can delay, but unlike the Republicans were able to do, they cannot stop the ultimate outcome, no matter how many times they say NO.

    The only hope the Democrats have is the filibuster in the Senate. And a circumstance has not come up yet where its use can be tried and its effectiveness evaluated.

  267. [267] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If it had been done in a bi-partisan manner, TrainWreckCare wouldn't have been TrainWreckCare...

    It's that simple..."

    Then the goal of Republicans should be to fix it, not repeal it all together.

  268. [268] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "But I have every right to discuss the REPEAL of TrainWreckCare because ALL of the facts to date indicate that TrainWreckCare is in a death spiral and is a train wreck..."

    Actually the FACTS don't prove that at all. There are many states where it is doing quite well in. For every state like North Carolina and Tennessee where there are indeed deep problems, there are also others like California, Michigan and Kentucky where it has been a success, where there is no death spiral and things in fact have stabilized if not actually gotten much better.

  269. [269] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M

    If the left's message did not resonate, then Clinton would not have gotten 3 million more votes than Trump, Americans would not be marching in the streets since Trump's election, and Republicans would not be having such a problem with their town hall meetings.

    Thank you for stating so much clearly what I was attempting to convey in my discussion with Liz! Hillary wasn't the perfect candidate, but she has scared the crap out of the GOP since Bill was in the White House. They have spent the last 30 years doing everything in their power to keep her from becoming President!

    I am just curious as to what it is about Hillary that causes such fear in Republicans? Was it because she and Bill were able to work with Big Money just as well, if not better, than the Republicans could? Was it because she could work with Wall St. while still implementing a progressive agenda -- making her popular with both the 1% and the other 99%?

    I dunno, but just knowing how much time and effort the GOP put into trying to keep Hillary from being president makes me believe she would have done great...

  270. [270] 
    michale wrote:

    NOT TRUE. We try all the time.

    Yea.. Cuz being called names and being viciously attacked and investigating my past is REALLY "logical and rational" discourse.. :^/

    If the left's message did not resonate, then Clinton would not have gotten 3 million more votes than Trump, Americans would not be marching in the streets since Trump's election, and Republicans would not be having such a problem with their town hall meetings.

    Yes, the Left's message resonates..

    **BUT ONLY IN CALIFORNIA**

    By all means.. If the Left is happy with winning California each and every time.. Yes, they DON'T have to change their message...

    But if they want to... yunno... WIN ELECTIONS....

    Then their message has to change..

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

    ACTUALLY NOT. Since you never listed any examples to my knowledge or cited any links to prove your point. If I recall correctly, you only said that Obama did, said it wasn't worth showing me any of your proof simply because I would not or refuse to believe you, and then you and I both left it at that.

    You do NOT recall correctly. I posted the facts of Obama's ignoring the court order to cease the amnesty illegal immigrant program...

    If you publicly promise to concede the point and admit I was right and you were wrong, I will go and find the link....

    If you can't (or more accurately WON'T) promise that or if you try to weasel out of it by disputing what the definition of 'is' is, then yes.. I won't waste my time...

  271. [271] 
    michale wrote:

    She was with the Federal ELECTIONS Commission, not the FCC! She pushed for more transparency -- requiring campaigns to post only statements they know to be true and requiring PACS to disclose where and how these nonprofits spend their money -- she had nothing to do with going after any propaganda sites for either side!

    She was pushing to regulate Drudge as if it were a political entity...

    But she gave a pass to places like HuffPoop and Daily Shit even though they are BLATANTLY more political than Drudge..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."

  272. [272] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Yes, the Left's message resonates..

    **BUT ONLY IN CALIFORNIA**"

    Again, NOT TRUE. The 3 million vote margin for Hillary came from BOTH California AND Washington state.

    Also, the current LEFT protests are taking place in areas OUTSIDE California as well, like New York, Chicago, Washington, Atlanta, etc.

    Michale wrote:

    "If you publicly promise to concede the point and admit I was right and you were wrong, I will go and find the link...."

    IF you post the link and prove that Obama ACTUALLY ignored a court order after it was issued, THEN I will concede the point and admit that you were right and I was wrong, but not before.

    But the link actually has to have some objective basis in concrete fact, and just not be some ring wing commentators editorial opinion.

  273. [273] 
    John M wrote:

    "....getting anything more than symbolically done."

    To go along with that previous comment I made about Congressional Republicans, I would have to say that;

    Trump also seems to be ALL showmanship and NOTHING of substance, at least so far, in both campaign and presidential governance.

    Only time will tell if someone like McMaster can help to change that.

  274. [274] 
    michale wrote:

    Again, NOT TRUE. The 3 million vote margin for Hillary came from BOTH California AND Washington state.

    This is factually not accurate...

    According to COOOK REPORT, NOT-45 had 4,269,978 more votes than President Trump in California...

    Even if it WERE factually accurate, even if WA state was part of that, that is only TWO states out of 50....

    IF you post the link and prove that Obama ACTUALLY ignored a court order after it was issued, THEN I will concede the point and admit that you were right and I was wrong, but not before.

    Do you recall when the Obama Administration was chastised by a federal judge because the Administration went ahead with more work permits for illegals AFTER the court ordered it to be stopped???

    That would certainly qualify and if you agree then we can come to an understanding...

    If you dispute these facts, then I will dig up the link...

  275. [275] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (269)-
    "...what is it about Hillary that causes such fear in Republicans ? Was it because she and Bill were able to work with Big Money just as well ,if not better, than the Republicans could ?"

    You say that like it's a GOOD thing.
    I can't speak for Republicans, but the fact that she worked so well with Big Money is what scared me off.

    In fact, anyone that considers themselves a progressive should be scared away from any candidate that works at all with Big Money. They should first demand small contribution candidates so that they know the candidates will truly represent their interests.

    "...she could work with Wall Street while still implementing a progressive agenda..."

    Not reality. Not possible. Working for a progressive agenda means working against Wall Street.

    The reality is she works with Wall Street while PRETENDING to implement a progressive agenda. Any progressive issues she has been on board with was only after the battle was over or was about social issues not financial issues at odds with Big Money interests.

  276. [276] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "This is factually not accurate...

    Even if it WERE factually accurate, even if WA state was part of that, that is only TWO states out of 50...."

    My information ALSO comes from the COOK REPORT:

    “We probably have about 7 million votes left to count,” said David Wasserman, an editor at Cook Political Report who is tracking turnout, shortly after the election. “A majority of them are on the coasts, in New York, California, and Washington. She should be able to win those votes, probably 2-1.” By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, Wasserman estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote.

    What’s with the delay? Several states, notably California and Washington, have liberal absentee and mail-in voting laws.

  277. [277] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John and Russ,

    Just to put a button on this ... ( a phrase, by the way, that deserves to be on the banned list ... heh)

    If the left's message did not resonate, then Clinton would not have gotten 3 million more votes than Trump ...

    No one disputes that her message didn't resonate.

    Her problem was that her message didn't resonate nearly enough. Specifically, she spent an inordinate amount of time on the many faults of Trump when she could have been developing her own POSITIVE message. Instead, she opted for a largely negative campaign that essentially ignored a swath of voters and failed to inspire another swath of voters.

    This is why she lost.

  278. [278] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Do you recall when the Obama Administration was chastised by a federal judge because the Administration went ahead with more work permits for illegals AFTER the court ordered it to be stopped???"

    NO. But I will concede that the situation was not entirely clear. After having dome my own research on the topic, I found the following:

    From World Net Daily, February 26, 2015

    "The president’s plan to delay the deportation of as many as 5 million illegal aliens through memos issued by appointees moved ahead Tuesday when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the extension of a program allowing spouses of certain visa holders to obtain work permits."

    "At virtually the same time, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who a week ago ordered federal agencies to stop implementation of the Obama amnesty plan, told plaintiffs in the lawsuit they have until March 3 to provide any additional arguments regarding the government’s request that he reverse his decision."

    "Hanen granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing the Obama administration’s immigration orders. The ruling also confirmed WND’s exclusive report that contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation WAS NOT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT. Instead, it was a MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama’s direction."

  279. [279] 
    michale wrote:

    "Hanen granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing the Obama administration’s immigration orders. The ruling also confirmed WND’s exclusive report that contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation WAS NOT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT. Instead, it was a MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama’s direction."

    Semantics..

    The issue was whether or not Obama and/or his administration violated a court order..

    It did..

    And the funny thing is, President Trump's administration DIDN'T violate any court orders. My initial posting was regards to line grunts who said they were going to ignore the court order and continue to follow the President's EO...

    It was never reported that anyone actually followed thru....

  280. [280] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "This is why she lost."

    Thank you, but I wasn't really disputing Hillary's many failures or weaknesses either. Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear.

    I was talking more about the appeal of the LEFT's message in general, as embodied by both Clinton and Sanders. Her campaign did not resonate nearly enough, but I think the LEFT's message in general did in fact resonate, given the ongoing marches and town hall protests that we see today. It just hasn't found an effective enough champion yet to put it into actual practice.

    That was the point that I was trying to get across.

  281. [281] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, let's hope that champion emerges soon!

  282. [282] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Semantics.."

    That sounds like someone who accuses you of being difficult about a technicality in order to avoid losing the argument about the essence. :-D

  283. [283] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "Well, let's hope that champion emerges soon!"

    AMEN TO THAT!!!

  284. [284] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [282]

    Indeed!

  285. [285] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz, John-
    A man sat on the roof of his house as the flood waters rose around him.
    When the national guard showed up in a truck, the man said he was waiting for God to save him.
    As the waters continued to rise over the edge of the roof he said the same to a man in a boat that came by and offered him a ride.
    As he stood at the peak of his roof knee deep in water he again refused help from a helicopter.
    When he arrived at heaven and asked why God didn't save him, God said "I sent you a truck , a boat and a helicopter."

    You are treading water. I have provided you with information on how to get the Big Money out of politics which is the first step to achieving any progressive goals. I bet you would be hard pressed to name any issue, progressive or not, that is not adversely affected by Big Money in our political process.
    I am not claiming to be God or even your Knight in Shining Armor. What I am saying is stop looking for a hero and try looking for an answer.
    And the answer is you will continue to get Big Money candidates until stop voting for Big Money candidates and start voting against them.

  286. [286] 
    John M wrote:

    Don Harris wrote:

    "I am not claiming to be God or even your Knight in Shining Armor. What I am saying is stop looking for a hero and try looking for an answer.
    And the answer is you will continue to get Big Money candidates until stop voting for Big Money candidates and start voting against them."

    I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries and not Hillary Clinton.

  287. [287] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (277)-
    Hillary's message resonated clearly to me. She was a Big Money candidate that took over 200 thousand dollars in personal income a shot for speeches to Wall Street executives. As Listen said in comment 269 she and Bill work with Big Money better than Republicans and work well with Wall Street.
    Is that the message you were talking about ?
    Any other message is a lie. But if the above message is the one you're talking about, then I would at least give her credit for being honest about it- though I still wouldn't support her.

  288. [288] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John-
    I am glad we agree in principle, even if we don't necessarily or completely agree on how to achieve it.

  289. [289] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So the question is how do citizens achieve this goal in 2018 and future elections ?
    Citizens should ask themselves these questions. There are no right or wrong answers. This exercise is to help you reach your own conclusions, though I admit I do hope it will lead to the same conclusion that I do. I am willing to entertain additional questions and options on question 4.
    1. Would I rather vote for a small contribution candidate for Congress (includes the Senate where applicable) in 2018 or a Big Money candidate ?
    2. Would I rather vote for a small contribution candidate or a Big Money candidate for Congress in 2020 ?
    3. Would I rather vote for a small contribution candidate or a Big Money candidate for Congress in 2022.
    4. Which stands a better chance of achieving 1,2 or 3 ?
    A. Waiting until a month or two before your congressional primary in 2018, 2020 and 2022 and then voting for a Big Money candidate because that is all that's offered or not voting in the primary and voting for a Big Money candidate in the general election in 2018 or not voting at all because that's all that's offered.
    B. Expecting legislation to be passed and implemented by Big Money legislators by 2018, 2020 or 2022 that this time will actually work at getting the Big Money out of our political process. Remember, if previous legislation had worked from as far back as the 1980's to McCain-Feingold and everything in between the problem would be solved by now and there would be no need for more legislation. Not exactly a stellar track record for this approach.
    C. Attending protest rallies.
    D. Registering NOW that you will only vote for small contribution candidates in 2018, 2020 and 2022 and that you will vote against Big Money candidates by writing your own name if there are no small contribution candidates on your primary and general election ballots and getting others to also participate.

    Certainly option A and D are at odds with each other.
    But option D does not require abandoning B and C. In fact, it makes those options more effective because it can get some small contribution candidates elected in 2018 and more in 2020 and 2022 to support any other legislation that is needed.
    If you need legislation to get the Big Money candidates out, then you first have to elect small contribution candidates to pass the legislation. It doesn't work the other way around. You can't expect the Big Money legislators to bite the hand that feeds them.
    And taking protests to the streets will be more effective if extended into the voting booth.

Comments for this article are closed.